add_particle_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation (adds a system), return type, and some constraints (max count, emission source options). But it omits behavioral details like whether it overwrites existing systems, required object mode, or failure conditions.

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 extremely concise with no extraneous words. It uses a clear list format for parameters and a separate line for returns, making it easy to scan.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers key aspects: add particle system to mesh, parameter explanations, return type. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., object mode) and does not clarify behavior if the object already has a particle system.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must define parameters. It explains object_name as 'mesh object', count with max 1000000, lifetime in frames, and emit_from with allowed values (VERT, FACE, VOLUME). This adds significant meaning beyond schema titles and defaults.

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 action ('Add') and the resource ('particle system to an object'), specifying the target object type ('mesh object'). It distinctly differentiates from siblings like delete_particle_system and set_particle_rendering.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (adding a particle system) and includes constraints like maximum count and emission source types. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives such as modification tools.

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