spawn_niagara_effect

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states basic spawning behavior and auto-activation, but omits error handling, permission needs, performance impact, or whether it's blocking/async.

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 a well-structured docstring with a brief introduction and a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and all parameters adequately. However, it lacks behavioral context such as error scenarios or system requirements, which is needed for a spawning operation.

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 coverage, the description fully compensates by clearly explaining each parameter, including format (e.g., coordinates as strings) and defaults. It adds meaningful information beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 tool spawns a Niagara System as an actor, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'spawn_actor' or 'control_niagara_effect' by specifying the exact type of effect and action.

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 'spawn_actor' or 'control_niagara_effect'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are provided.

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