set_niagara_float

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it doesn't mention what happens if the parameter is not found, whether the component needs to be bound, or whether the change is immediate or on next spawn. This is a mutation operation with zero context provided, creating a 'black box' for side effects.

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?

One sentence, zero fluff, uses consistent nomenclature. It's appropriately sized for its minimal content, though it could have used the space to add behavioral context without risking verbosity.

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, no output schema, and a bare-bones description, the agent has no way to know the return value, error semantics, or preconditions. The sibling tools for set_niagara_vector/bool/color exist, so this has no extra complexity, but for a mutation tool without annotations, it should have conveyed at least basic safety or scope information.

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 has 100% coverage—'value' is 'Float value', 'actor_name' is 'Actor with Niagara component', and 'parameter_name' is just 'Parameter name.' The description doesn't add meaningful depth to these. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though 'Parameter name' is somewhat tautological.

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 'Set a float parameter on a Niagara component' uses a clear verb-object structure with specific vocabulary like 'float parameter' and 'Niagara component,' which orients the agent's tool selection. However, it does not reference subtle differences from sibling tools handling vector, color, or boolean types, though the type name is embedded in the tool name (set_niagara_float).

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_niagara_vector, set_niagara_bool, or set_niagara_color. There's no mention of when setting a float parameter is appropriate (e.g., before spawn vs. live update), no exclusions, and no prerequisite information about whether the Niagara component must be active or exist.

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