design_set_particle_motion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this mutates existing settings, whether unspecified properties are preserved, permission/auth requirements, reversibility, or expected response. The verb 'Configure' implies mutation but adds little else.

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 that is easy to scan and contains no filler. Listing parameter names is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the sentence remains appropriately sized.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the target and the configurable fields. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral effects, and how to handle layer-type-specific parameters, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented with units and layer-type applicability (e.g., windAngle for falling layers, driftPhase for floating layers). The description merely lists six parameter names without adding syntax, defaults, or meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('motion properties on a particle layer'), and names the six motion properties it controls. It clearly distinguishes motion configuration from siblings like design_set_particle_style or design_set_particle_depth, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus design_set_particle_style, design_randomize_particles, or design_add_particles, and no prerequisites such as requiring an existing particle layer. Usage is only implied by the verb and target resource.

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