set_particle_velocity

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

The description explains what the tool does but does not disclose side effects, dependencies, or state changes beyond parameter values. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context.

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 concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a structured Args and Returns section. It front-loads the main purpose and presents parameter details efficiently without unnecessary text.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and all parameters adequately, and notes the return type. However, it lacks information on error conditions or prerequisites, such as requiring the object to have a particle system. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is mostly 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is essential. It provides clear explanations for each parameter, including that normal and tangent are velocity components and object_align_factor is a 3-element vector. This significantly enhances understanding.

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 as 'Set velocity settings for an object's particle system', specifying the verb (Set) and resource (velocity settings of particle system). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_particle_rendering or set_physics_property.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the object needing an existing particle system. It assumes the user knows the appropriate context.

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