particles.add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the action without detailing side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing systems), prerequisites, or constraints. The behavior beyond 'add' is opaque.

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, front-loading the core purpose. It avoids redundancy but may be too terse given the lack of supporting details. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple action.

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 and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens after adding (e.g., how to verify success, what the return value is). Sibling tools like particles.report or particles.systems could complement, but the description itself lacks contextual cues.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. The 'name' and 'object' fields are not explained beyond the schema's titles. The agent lacks clarity on what values are valid or how they affect the operation.

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 'Add a particle system to an object' is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like particles.remove, particles.report, and particles.set, which have different actions.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., object existence, mode requirements), and no when-not-to-use instructions. This leaves the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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