spawn_niagara_attached

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'attached to an actor' but omits crucial details like what happens if the actor is not found, whether the system auto-destroys with the actor, or if any specific transform behavior occurs. Minimal behavioral disclosure for a mutating spawn operation.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It immediately conveys the core purpose without any fluff or filler.

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?

For a simple tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It could be more complete by explaining attachment semantics (e.g., location, socket, lifetime) or failure behavior, especially given the absence of 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters (actor_name and system_path) with concise descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema describes, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 system') along with the attachment context ('attached to an actor'). This distinctly differentiates it from the sibling tool spawn_niagara_at_location, which spawns at a location rather than attaching to an actor.

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 implies when to use the tool (when attaching a Niagara system to an actor) but offers no explicit guidance or alternatives. It does not contrast with sibling tools like spawn_niagara_at_location or mention prerequisites such as a valid actor name or system asset path.

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