particle_emitter_config

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the dual read/write behavior and the exact trigger for writing, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return value, whether writing merges or replaces the existing configuration, or how errors like unknown emitter IDs are handled.

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 just two sentences with no filler, and the core purpose ('Get or set') is front-loaded. Every clause contributes essential guidance about how to invoke the tool.

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?

The description covers mode selection and resource identification, which is enough for a basic invocation. But with no output schema and no annotations, it omits important contextual details like what a read returns, what a write returns, and whether the write is a partial update or a full replacement, leaving some ambiguity about side effects.

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 adds the key semantic that `config` is optional and controls read vs write mode, and the schema property names are largely self-explanatory (emitRate, maxParticles, etc.). Still, it leaves unspecified details like emitterId format, value ranges, units, and whether omitted config fields are preserved or reset on write.

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 specific verbs ('get' or 'set') and a precise resource ('ParticleSystem emitter configuration' keyed by emitter ID). It clearly distinguishes both modes and is distinct from the sibling tools, which target other systems like physics, scenes, or save data.

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?

It explicitly states when to read vs write: omit `config` to read, provide `config` to write. No overlapping sibling tool is mentioned, but the conditional instruction is clear enough for an agent to select the correct behavior without further context.

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