reset_niagara_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It doesn't disclose whether this is a safe idempotent operation, whether it affects ongoing simulations, or if it requires specific conditions. The difference between 'reset' and 'reinit' remains unclear to the agent.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient and free of fluff, though it could add a bit more context without being verbose.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. For a tool that likely performs a mutation (reset), the lack of behavioral context and disambiguation from reinit_niagara_system makes it incomplete. The tool is relatively simple, but the ambiguity is significant.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for actor_name. The description adds nothing beyond that, but the schema is complete. According to guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema has full coverage.

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 'Reset a Niagara system on an actor' clearly states the action (reset) and target (Niagara system on an actor). It distinguishes from siblings like reinit_niagara_system and spawn_niagara_at_location, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. It is a bit vague about what 'reset' entails compared to 'reinit'.

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 vs alternatives like reinit_niagara_system. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. The user is left guessing about the difference between reset and reinit.

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