spawn_niagara_at_location

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

With no annotations provided, the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as auto-destruction behavior, whether the spawned system returns a handle, or whether it persists in the world. The auto_destroy parameter is mentioned only in the schema, not in the description, leaving side effects unclear.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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 4 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about return values, persistence, or parameter expectations. It relies heavily on the schema, which is incomplete (rotation lacks description).

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% (location, system_path, auto_destroy have descriptions; rotation does not). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, and it does not compensate for the missing rotation documentation.

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 verb 'Spawn' with a clear resource 'Niagara particle system' and scope 'at a world location'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like spawn_niagara_attached and set_niagara_*.

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 phrase 'at a world location' implies this is for world-space placement, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives such as spawn_niagara_attached or when not to use it. It provides implied context without exclusions or selection criteria.

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