Add a particle system to a Blender object, with EMITTER for simulations or HAIR for grooming.
Add a particle system. Types: EMITTER, HAIR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| type | No | EMITTER | |
| object | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Add a particle system' and lists types, without mentioning that this mutates the target object, requires the object to exist, or how invalid objects/types are handled.
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 very brief and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, providing only a bare type list without connection to the parameters.
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 there are three parameterschild, one required, and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'object' refers to, what causes the 'type' to matter, or what the output schema will return. The presence of an output schema helps, but the behavioral and parameter semantics are still under-specified.
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 compensate, but it only provides type hints (EMITTER, HAIR). It does not explain the required 'object' parameter or the optional 'name' parameter, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from parameter names alone.
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?
Description uses a specific verb 'Add' and resource 'particle system', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_particle_system, set_particle_property, and get_particle_info. It also mentions the allowed types, though it doesn't explicitly state that the system is added to the required object parameter.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as setup_hair, set_particle_property, or bake_particles. The description implies creation via the word 'Add' but does not state prerequisites, constraints, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.