particle_start_emitting

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but only states it starts/stops emission. It does not mention side effects, required scene state, reversibility, or what happens to existing particles. The return value is vague ('Success message or error description').

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 very concise with a clear structure: a one-line summary, category, parameter list, and return information. Every sentence is necessary 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description covers parameter purposes but lacks details on return format, error conditions, and whether the tool works at runtime or edit time. It is complete enough for basic use but not robust.

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 description adds meaning beyond raw parameter names by specifying each parameter's role (e.g., 'Path to the Godot project directory'). However, the schema already provides titles, so this is reinforcement rather than new insight. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates minimally.

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 tool's function: 'Start or stop particle emission.' It uses a specific verb ('start or stop') and resource ('particle emission'), distinguishing it from siblings like particle_add_system which creates a system.

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 particle_set_properties or other control tools. It does not mention prerequisites or context for usage.

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