add_particle_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a concrete bound (max 1000000 particles), units for lifetime (frames), and the shape of the return value, but says nothing about side effects such as mutating the object's modifier stack or whether the new system becomes active/selected.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by tightly grouped Args and Returns sections, with no filler sentences. The Args block duplicates schema titles slightly but earns its place given the zero schema coverage.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns note is redundant but harmless. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description stops short of stating permissions, side effects, or failure modes, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether it is safe to call.

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 must compensate, and it does: every one of the four parameters is named and explained (mesh name, particle count with a hard cap, lifetime in frames, emission source with the enum values VERT/FACE/VOLUME). Only object_name's type expectation is left implicit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a particle system to an object'), which clearly separates it from read-side siblings like get_object_info. It does not explicitly contrast with delete_particle_system or set_particle_rendering, but the action is 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. object must be a mesh, must exist, must be in object mode), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the creation step before set_particle_velocity/set_particle_rendering.

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