configure_particles

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, confirming mutation and local scope. The description adds nothing about whether the update is partial or replaces the whole config, how existing properties not mentioned are treated, or how expectedRevision conflicts are handled, despite expectedRevision in the schema implying optimistic concurrency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though efficiency here comes at the cost of any operational detail.

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 mutating tool taking an opaque nested config object with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. The agent lacks the shape of the config payload, revision semantics, and the distinction from the emitter-creation sibling.

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% across five parameters, and 'config' is an untyped nested object with no structure documented. The description only indirectly hints at config contents via 'gradients, physics and lifetime properties' and says nothing about layerId, sessionId, requestId, or expectedRevision.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') with a concrete resource set (emitter and particle settings, gradients, physics, lifetime), so the domain of change is clear. It does not distinguish this from the sibling add_particle_emitter, leaving ambiguity about whether it can create or only modify an existing emitter.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of add_particle_emitter or add_layer, and no stated prerequisites such as the layer already needing an emitter. The agent must infer the appropriate call context from the sibling list alone.

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