set_niagara_system_property

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

No annotations provided. Description indicates a write operation ('Set') via reflection. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., requires asset to be writable, changes may need saving, or error conditions if property not found). Basic transparency but could be improved.

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?

Description is concise: one sentence for purpose, a list of property examples, and a clear Args section. No wasted words, easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's action and parameters adequately. Could mention that changes are not automatically saved, but overall complete for a setter tool.

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?

All three parameters are described in Args: system_path (path to asset), property (exact PascalCase name), value (string). Examples for value (e.g., '2.0', 'true') add clarity beyond the schema, which only specifies types.

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 'Set a system-level property on a Niagara System via reflection.' Lists specific properties (WarmupTime, bDeterminism, etc.) and uses exact C++ property names. Distinguishes from sibling Niagara tools that operate at emitter or module level.

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?

Explains usage by listing supported properties and requiring exact PascalCase names. Provides examples like 'WarmupTime', 'bDeterminism'. While not explicitly excluding other tools, the context implies it's for system-level properties, which is distinct from emitter/module-specific siblings.

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