explode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about the destructive fracture behavior, the conditional smoke/fire-only mode, the performance cost of smoke_collision, and the effect of power and resolution settings. It does not mention persistence, cleanup, or other scene side effects, but core behavior is disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the English summary, followed by concise Korean explanations of key parameters. The bilingual repetition adds some redundancy, but the content is terse and every sentence conveys useful information.

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?

This is a 15-parameter creative tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no enum constraints. The description covers core behavior and a handful of presets, but omits many parameters that affect the result. An agent would be able to trigger a simple explosion but not reliably fine-tune it or anticipate full effects.

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 adds useful meaning for `target` vs `at`, and gives presets for `power`, `resolution`, and `smoke_collision`. However, 10 of 15 parameters such as `dust`, `glue`, `frames`, `pieces`, `radius`, `pattern`, `material`, `burst_frame`, and `preview_frames` remain unexplained, leaving a significant gap.

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 and resource: fracture the target, blow chunks outward, and add smoke/fire. It also explains the fallback behavior when no target is provided, which makes the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate siblings like fire/smoke/destroy.

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 decision-relevant context: if a target is provided, fracture it; if not, create smoke and fire at the `at` position. This helps the agent choose the right mode. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use this tool versus alternatives like fire or smoke.

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