add_particle_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this tool adds a new particle system, what happens to the object, or whether it requires an existing object. The agent is given no information about side effects, return behavior, or constraints.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any structure, such as a purpose statement or parameter overview, and the single sentence provides minimal information. It is not a well-crafted efficient description but a bare fragment.

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?

Given the tool adds a particle system and has four parameters plus an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential context like the required object, default behaviors, and what the output represents. The agent cannot rely on this description to correctly invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It offers a hint about valid values for 'type', but it does not explain the meaning of other parameters like 'name', 'count', or 'object_name'. This is far short of necessary parameter documentation, leaving most arguments ambiguous.

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 'type: EMITTER or HAIR.' does not state what the tool does. It only mentions possible values for the 'type' parameter, leaving the tool's core function (adding a particle system to an object) entirely implied. There is no verb describing the action, and it is impossible to distinguish this from siblings like 'set_particle_settings' or 'remove_particle_system' without guessing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_particle_systems' or 'set_particle_settings'. There is no mention of prerequisites, target objects, or comparison with related tools, leaving the agent without any contextual direction.

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