bake_particles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the particle simulation will be baked and gives no information about side effects, whether existing baked data is overwritten, required object state, or what the resulting cache behavior is.

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 extremely short with no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. A single phrase without parameter or usage context does not earn high marks for structure, as it sacrifices necessary information for brevity.

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 tool has two parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It fails to mention prerequisites, parameter roles, or how this relates to sibling baking tools, leaving critical context missing for correct invocation.

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 explain the two parameters (object and system). The agent gets no help understanding what values to supply, what 'object' refers to, or how 'system' should be specified. The description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'bake' and 'particle simulation'. It is clear enough for an agent to understand the core operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling tools like bake_physics or free_physics_bake.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, what prerequisites are needed (e.g., an existing particle system), or which alternatives to prefer. The description simply states the action without providing decision-making context.

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