fire

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful traits: target-surface vs point burning, resolution=0 auto-scaling to object size, and per-parameter effects for density, dissolve, vorticity, and noise. However, it omits other behaviors like what happens when both target and at are set, or how frames are sequenced.

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 front-loaded English sentence is clear, but the Korean passage largely restates and extends the same content, creating bilingual redundancy. The content is informative but not tightly structured, and a mixed-language description adds parsing overhead for an agent.

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?

For a 14-parameter simulation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves half the parameters unexplained and offers no guidance on return values, fire's interaction with the scene, or render requirements. This is a significant gap for a complex tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it explains 7 of 14 parameters (target, at, resolution, density, dissolve, vorticity, noise) with genuinely useful semantics, e.g. 'dissolve 사라지는 속도(클수록 오래 남음)'. But power, radius, frames, start/end_frame, preview_frames, and smoke_collision remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 English sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Continuous fire with smoke, burning on a target's surface or at a point.' This conveys the primary effect and its two placement modes, distinguishing it from sim siblings like water, smoke, and explosion by its fire focus, though it never explicitly names alternatives.

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 explains the behavioral modes (target surface vs at point) but never tells an agent when to prefer fire over sibling simulation tools such as smoke, explosion, water, or splash. There is no explicit 'use when' guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative routing.

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