particles-set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a mutating operation (which 'set' implies) or any side effects, such as immediately updating the system or requiring a viewport refresh. It also doesn't mention error scenarios or confirmation responses, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral understanding beyond the action itself.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that gets to the point. It does not waste words, but it could be longer to provide necessary detail. It is appropriately brief for a simple action, though lacks substance.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation in the description, the description is incomplete. It leaves the agent guessing about the exact property path format, value handling (JSON), and which object sub-parts are editable. The tool's complexity is moderate (four parameters) but the description only covers half the picture. Sibling tools like physics-set and pointcloud-set likely have similar patterns, but the description does not leverage that context.

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 must explain all parameters. The description only mentions 'RNA property' and 'particle system', but the parameters 'object' (what object to edit) and 'value' (JSON format) are not elaborated. For example, 'object' could be 'system' or 'settings', and 'value' must be JSON, which is in the schema but not in the description. The description fails to clarify parameter relationships or formats.

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 'Set one RNA property on a particle system or its settings' clearly states the action (set an RNA property) and the resource (particle system or its settings). It distinguishes from sibling tools like particles-add/remove (which create/delete systems) and particles-report (which reads). However, it does not explicitly mention that it modifies rather than creates, but the verb 'set' conveys that.

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 like physics-set or pointcloud-set, nor does it specify any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., must select a particle system first). It implies usage by its name and purpose but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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