Create particle system

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral detail: it creates a baseCOMP under parent_path, exposes knobs, returns a structured JSON with paths, errors, warnings, and preview image. It also warns about force approximations and render fallbacks, going well beyond the annotations.

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 well front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds meaningful detail. It is slightly lengthy but not redundant. It could be trimmed slightly, but overall efficient.

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 tool creates a complex multi-node system; the description lists all created components, exposed controls, and the return structure (summary + JSON with paths, errors, warnings, preview). Without an output schema, the description fully explains the return value, making it complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how forces map to native params (e.g., attract/repel/vortex approximated with turbulence) and render style fallbacks. This extra operational context justifies a score above baseline.

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 'Build a CPU particle system' and enumerates the components created, making the verb and resource explicit. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'create_gpu_particle_field' by contrasting CPU vs GPU simulation and particle count limits.

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 directly tells the agent when to use an alternative: 'Use create_gpu_particle_field instead for much higher counts (GPU-simulated, up to ~262k particles).' This provides clear decision guidance.

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