create_niagara_module_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the creation behavior and template duplication, but does not specify what happens if the asset_path already exists (overwrite/error), whether permissions are needed, or if the asset is automatically saved after creation. These are important gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is well-structured with a main action sentence, a behavioral note, and a clear args list. It is not overly verbose; each sentence adds value. Minor improvement would be tightening the template duplication sentence, but overall it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the creation purpose, template behavior, and parameters adequately. However, it lacks information about error conditions and prerequisites like valid content paths, which would be needed for full completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well. It explains asset_path with a concrete example, enumerates the three module_type options, and clarifies that description is optional. This adds meaning beyond the schema which only provides types and defaults.

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 it creates a standalone Niagara script asset (module/dynamic input/function). It distinguishes from sibling creation tools like create_niagara_system (creates a system) and create_niagara_scratch_pad_module (scratch pad). The verb 'create' and resource 'Niagara script asset' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides example usage (asset_path format, module_type options) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_niagara_scratch_pad_module. No 'when not to use' guidance is given. The behavioral note about duplicating the editor's template hints at ideal use cases but is not a clear guideline.

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