set_niagara_dynamic_input

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It transparently notes that it uses the same code path as the editor UI, implying equivalent behavior. All parameters and their conditional dependencies are explained. While side effects (asset modification) are implied, they are not explicitly stated.

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 an introductory paragraph followed by a clear bullet list of parameters. It is information-dense but not overly verbose. Minor redundancy: the internal code path detail may be unnecessary for typical users.

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 complexity (13 parameters, 6 required, conditional dependencies), the description covers all inputs and their relationships. It lacks explanation of return values, but an output schema likely provides that. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 fully compensates by detailing each parameter's purpose, valid values, and conditional requirements. It explains the dynamic_input_type enum with examples (e.g., 'random_range' requires min_value/max_value as float or vector JSON), and provides guidance for script discovery.

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?

Clearly states the action: 'Set a dynamic input' on a module input, listing the types of dynamic inputs. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_niagara_module_input by specifying it handles dynamic inputs (random range, parameter link, expression, script), not simple value assignments.

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?

Provides clear usage instructions: describes the internal code path, enumerates dynamic_input_type options with their required parameters, and advises using search_niagara_functions for script discovery. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like set_niagara_module_input, nor does it mention prerequisites or error conditions.

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