add_particles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It explains parameters but omits side effects (e.g., whether it replaces existing particle systems), return values, or required object context.

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then list key parameter meanings without unnecessary 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?

Given the complexity of particle systems and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description covers core functionality but omits details about object selection (implied by required 'name' parameter), scope, and potential constraints.

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 description coverage, the description adds meaning to parameters: explains type options (EMITTER, HAIR), count, lifetime, and velocity. However, it does not cover the 'size' parameter, leaving a 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 clearly states the verb (add) and resource (particle system to an object), distinguishes from siblings like add_cloth or add_light by specifying particle-specific parameters and types.

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 context on parameter meanings but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'physics_add_particle_system'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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