remove_particle_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the action 'Remove', which is already in the tool name, and adds no side effects, irreversibility, error conditions, or dependencies. The description does not contradict annotations (none exist) but fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious mutation.

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 sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. There is no fluff, but it is arguably too short to be fully useful. It earns a 4 for being well-structured and to the point.

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 a tool with two required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not visible in the description, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the 'object' parameter, provide any usage context, or clarify return values. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly without additional information from elsewhere.

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. It explains the 'name' parameter indirectly ('by name') but leaves 'object' entirely unexplained. An agent does not know what 'object' refers to (e.g., the object containing the particle system) or how it is used. The description adds minimal meaning over the schema and fails to clarify required parameters.

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 states a clear action (remove) and resource (particle system) with a selection criterion (by name). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_particle_system and set_particle_property, though it does not explicitly mention the 'object' parameter, which is a required field. Overall, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., that the object must exist, that the particle system must already be present) or any exclusions. An agent is left to infer that removal is appropriate whenever a named particle system is no longer needed, but there is no explicit routing or caution.

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