control_niagara_effect

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose side effects or prerequisites. For example, does 'destroy' remove the actor permanently? No details on what happens to the actor after each action.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise: two sentences and parameter list. Front-loaded with the purpose. Every part adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) which may document return values, but the description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., actor must exist) and error conditions. Given the narrow scope, it's minimally adequate but could elaborate on state assumptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by listing the possible action values (activate, deactivate, reset, destroy) and clarifying actor_name is a name/label. This helps the agent understand valid inputs.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool controls a Niagara effect actor with actions like activate, deactivate, reset, destroy. It differentiates from siblings like spawn_niagara_effect or delete_niagara_system by focusing on runtime control.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as when to activate vs spawn, or when to destroy vs use delete_niagara_system. The agent must infer context from actions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.