spawn_niagara_attached

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not mention side effects, requirements (e.g., actor must be valid), return behavior, or cleanup semantics. For a spawn operation, this is minimal.

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 concise sentence with zero waste, perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks behavioral transparency about return values or error handling, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters already described (actor_name, system_path). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 'Spawn a Niagara system attached to an actor' clearly states a specific verb (spawn), resource (Niagara system), and attachment target (actor), distinguishing it from the sibling spawn_niagara_at_location which spawns at a location.

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 the use case (attaching to an actor) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It could be strengthened by noting that spawn_niagara_at_location is the choice when no actor attachment is desired, but currently it lacks such guidance.

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