set_particle_property

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

The idempotentHint annotation already covers repeated-call safety, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds a useful list of settable properties but does not explain behavioral effects such as overwriting existing values or requiring an existing particle system. It does not contradict the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action, the resource, and the relevant property keywords efficiently.

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?

Despite the output schema and idempotent annotation, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It does not explain how to identify the object or particle system, nor what values each listed property accepts. An agent would likely need external knowledge to set emit_from or physics_type correctly.

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 lists possible values for the property parameter, which helps, but it does not explain the semantics of object, system, or value, nor map value types to each property. For example, emit_from and physics_type likely expect string-like values, yet the schema only allows number, integer, or boolean.

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 specific verb ('Set') and resource ('particle system property') and enumerates the supported properties: count, lifetime, emit_from, physics_type, size. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from sibling set_* tools like set_physics_property or set_material_property.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_particle_system, get_particle_info, or setup_hair. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or why an agent would choose this over a sibling tool.

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