spawn_niagara_at_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and location, but does not mention side effects like whether the system auto-destroys, how long it runs, or any performance implications. The schema mentions auto_destroy with a description, but the tool description itself adds no behavioral insight.

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 zero wasted words. It immediately states the action and target, which is ideal for quick parsing by an agent.

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?

While the schema provides parameter details, the description lacks critical context such as the standalone nature of the spawn (vs. attached), the lifecycle of the system, and any potential impact. For a tool that spawns a particle system, agents would benefit from knowing whether it's a persistent or transient effect, but the description is minimal. It is adequate but not complete given no annotations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify parameter formats, units, or relationships, but the schema covers most essential details, so the description is not required to compensate.

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 action (spawn) and the resource (Niagara particle system) plus a key differentiator (at a world location). It distinguishes from spawn_niagara_attached by implication but does not explicitly name the alternative. The verb and resource are specific enough for basic identification.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like spawn_niagara_attached. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users must infer from the name or sibling tools, which is not sufficient.

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