remove_niagara_node_pin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning consequences (e.g., irreversible removal, effects on graph validation) or requirements (e.g., pin must be dynamic).

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 single sentence is concise but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded with the action, but lacks structure and detail.

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 the tool's complexity (Niagara system, scratch pad graph, optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably use the tool. Parameter semantics and behavioral traits are missing.

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 no meaning to the six parameters. Critical fields like system_path, module_name, pin_name, node_id, node_class, and node_index are unexplained, leaving the agent to infer their roles.

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 action (remove), resource (dynamic pin), and context (from any node in a scratch pad graph). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_niagara_node_pin and rename_niagara_node_pin.

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 versus alternatives like remove_niagara_custom_hlsl_pin or other removal tools. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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