particles-add

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Add a particle system' only conveys a mutating action; it does not disclose whether existing particle systems are preserved, whether a duplicate name is rejected, whether the object must be valid/editable, or what the result of a successful call looks like.

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 compact sentence, 'Add a particle system to an object,' with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and target, 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?

For an action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain prerequisites, side effects, or how addition interacts with existing particle systems. The low parameter count reduces complexity, but the missing behavioral context for a mutating operation is a significant gap.

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 needs to explain the 'name' and 'object' parameters, but it only mentions 'an object' generically. The schema's titles ('Optional particle system name', 'Object to edit') provide minimal meaning, yet the description adds no semantic detail about defaults, naming behavior, or which object is selected.

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 states a clear action and resource: 'Add a particle system to an object.' The verb 'add' and the noun 'particle system' distinguish it from related sibling tools like particles-remove, particles-report, and particles-set. However, it does not explicitly scope beyond 'an object' (e.g., new vs. existing system), which keeps it just short of fully distinguishing.

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 particles-set or particles-remove. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent to infer which situation calls for adding a particle system rather than modifying or removing one.

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