set_particle_emission_shape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether existing particles are affected), required permissions, or the mutating nature beyond the verb 'Set'. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavior unspecified.

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 sentence of 8 words, which is extremely concise. It front-loads the core purpose. While it could be expanded slightly (e.g., listing the shape enum), it remains efficient and to the point.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., existence of particle node), expected behavior of the 'size' parameter for different shapes, or return values. This significantly limits the description's usefulness for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100% (all 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'size' relates to different shapes. Since baseline is 3 when coverage is high, this score is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('emission shape'), clearly indicating what the tool does. It distinguishes this tool from other particle-related siblings like set_particle_color_gradient or set_particle_material, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other particle settings), nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the particle node must exist) or when not to use it. This lack of contextual usage guidance forces the agent to infer appropriateness purely from the name.

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