set_niagara_float

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it sets a float parameter, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., persistence), error conditions (e.g., missing component), or any impact on the simulation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, concise and to the point, with no redundant or irrelevant information. For the simplicity of the tool, this length is appropriate and front-loaded.

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?

Considering the tool's simplicity, the schema, and the lack of annotations, the description still falls short. It omits critical context such as the need for the actor to have a Niagara component, potential parameter creation vs. setting existing ones, and how this relates to similar Niagara tools. The description alone is insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 basic descriptions for all three parameters, but the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify allowed value ranges, exact naming conventions for parameter_name, or how actor_name is resolved. Since schema descriptions are generic, the tool description provides minimal added semantic 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 clearly states the action (Set), the resource (float parameter), and the context (Niagara component). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_niagara_vector or set_niagara_bool, which target different parameter types. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 such as set_niagara_vector, set_niagara_color, or reset_niagara_system. There are no prerequisites, usage scenarios, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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