set_niagara_script_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'batch-set' and lists supported properties, but does not state whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, triggers compilation, or auto-saves. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 clear purpose line and an 'Args' section using bullet points. It is informative without being overly verbose, though a slight reduction in technical detail could improve conciseness.

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 of 4 parameters, nested objects, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics fairly well. However, it lacks information about return values (despite an output schema being present) and side effects like auto-saving or compilation, leaving gaps in 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description adds significant meaning: it defines the 'properties' parameter as a dict with explicit supported keys and types, and clarifies the resolution logic for the script target via system_path+module_name or script_path. This greatly aids parameter understanding.

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 'Batch-set details-panel properties on a Niagara script' with specific verbs and resources. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_niagara_script_properties' and 'set_niagara_system_property'.

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 explains how to target the script via system_path+module_name or script_path, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor provides exclusions or prerequisites. Some guidance is implied but not formalized.

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