particles-remove

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool removes a particle system, which implies destructiveness, but it does not explicitly warn about irreversible side effects, potential errors (e.g., if the name does not exist), or any permissions required. No mention of what happens to the object or other particle systems. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every word carries meaning. For a simple operation like this, the brevity is appropriate and achieves maximum efficiency.

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 is too sparse for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not explain error handling, prerequisites, or consequences of removal. While the operation is conceptually simple, the agent lacks information about whether the removal is permanent, whether it can fail due to missing objects or names, or what the response will be. This under-specification could lead to incorrect invocation or unexpected outcomes.

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 zero description coverage, so the description must clarify parameters. It mentions 'named' (corresponding to the name parameter) and 'from an object' (corresponding to the object parameter), which adds some context beyond the schema titles. However, it does not provide syntax examples, constraints, or clarify that the name must match an existing particle system. The bare titles 'Particle system name' and 'Object to edit' already convey the basic meaning, so the description adds only marginal value.

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 (remove), the resource (named particle system), and the target (from an object). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like particles-add (add) and particles-set (modify) by specifying that it removes an existing named particle system. This is specific and 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention scenarios for removal, prerequisites (e.g., the particle system must exist), or exclusions. Sibling tools like particles-set or particles-report are not referenced, so the agent has no explicit context for selecting this tool. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'remove'.

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