create_particle_field

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 generation of a scattered field, but does not clarify whether a new object is created, whether it affects the current scene/selection, or whether the operation is deterministic given a seed. No side effects, object creation, or scene-level impact are mentioned.

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 followed by a compact argument list. It contains no fluff and every line adds information. The structure efficiently presents the purpose and parameters, though the argument list is a bit redundant with the schema in terms of names and defaults, but it adds semantics.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'field' implies in a 3D context (e.g., new object creation, particle system, or geometry), nor does it specify any behavioral effects. An agent needs more context on the tool's place in the scene and how to integrate it with existing objects.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It provides concise definitions for all five parameters (name, count, size, particle_size, seed), which goes beyond the bare schema types and defaults. While brief, it compensates for the absence of schema descriptions and clarifies each parameter's role.

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 'Generate a field of scattered particles/objects.', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from generic `create_object` by specifying the particle-field nature, though it does not explicitly contrast with `add_particle_system` or `create_procedural_distribution`. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention its suitability for particle scattering, nor does it exclude cases better handled by `add_particle_system` (for particle systems on existing objects) or `create_procedural_distribution`. The agent is left to infer the context from the tool name and description alone.

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