particles

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 does add useful behavior: it explains kind values, particle parameter meanings, and the important rule that negative/zero values keep the preset. It does not mention side effects, persistence, cleanup, or whether particles are transient visual effects.

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 core particle types before parameter notes. The brief English/Korean repetition is minor and does not obscure the content. It stays appropriately short for the amount of information it conveys.

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 complex 14-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. Missing details include the meaning of target, frames, area, height, start_frame, and preview_frames, as well as coordinate units, whether the effect is temporary or persistent, and what the agent should expect after 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?

The schema provides 0% parameter descriptions, and the tool has 14 parameters. The description explains only six of them: kind, size, gravity, drag, lifetime, and speed. Critical parameters such as at, area, count, frames, height, target, start_frame, and preview_frames remain unexplained, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 clearly names the resource (particles) and enumerates the specific variants it handles: rain, snow, sparks, and ash. This is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool produces, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'create' or 'spawn' and does not differentiate it from sibling effect tools such as fire or smoke.

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?

Usage is implied by the listed particle kinds: if you want rain, snow, sparks, or ash, this tool is relevant. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this versus sibling tools like fire, smoke, water, or splash, and no exclusions are provided.

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