set_niagara_user_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that the tool mutates state and supports two execution paths, but does not detail error behavior (e.g., missing parameter, type mismatch), whether changes auto-save, or what happens if both system_path and actor_name are provided.

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 brief and efficient: two lead sentences followed by a clear bullet list. No superfluous words, and the key distinction (system_path vs actor_name) is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, two modes, and no annotations, the description covers core functionality but omits error handling, prerequisite conditions, and default behavior for optional params (schema shows null defaults). An output schema exists but is not shown; given the complexity, the description could be more thorough.

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 description adds meaning to all 5 parameters beyond the schema's type-only definitions. It explains that system_path is for asset defaults and actor_name for runtime overrides, and that parameter_type must match an existing type. Given 0% schema description coverage, this provides necessary context, though it could clarify value format or valid 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'user parameter value on a Niagara System asset or level actor instance'. It distinguishes between two modes (asset default via system_path and runtime override via actor_name), which sets it apart from sibling tools like get, add, remove, and link.

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 guidance on when to use system_path vs actor_name, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over related siblings (e.g., add_niagara_user_parameter for creation) or what prerequisites are required (parameter must already exist). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives.

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