set_niagara_bool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it sets a value, without mentioning requirements such as a loaded actor or existing Niagara component, side effects, or whether a return value is produced. This is minimal beyond the operation itself.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and resource.

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?

This is a simple setter with fully documented parameters, so the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from noting prerequisites, behavior, or expected results.

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 100% coverage with parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides adequate semantics for actor_name, parameter_name, and value.

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 uses a specific action ('Set') and resource ('bool parameter on a Niagara component'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling type-specific tools like set_niagara_float, set_niagara_vector, and set_niagara_color.

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 does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the phrase 'bool parameter' and the sibling tool names imply type-based selection. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternative suggestions.

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