design_set_particle_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists style fields and does not explain whether the update is partial or full, what happens to unspecified existing style values, permission requirements, or whether glow settings are restricted to floating particles beyond what the schema already says.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The attribute list is useful for quick scanning, though it partially duplicates the schema and could have been used to include a routing hint instead.

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?

This is an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. While the schema fully documents the parameters, the description does not provide enough behavioral context about the update operation, side effects, or expected result for an agent to invoke it with confidence.

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 the schema already documents all parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description lists the main style properties and groups them as visual style, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as valid ranges or interaction between sizeMin and sizeMax.

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 states a specific verb and resource: configure visual style on a particle layer, and it enumerates the style attributes affected. It clearly separates style from sibling particle operations like motion and depth, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 tool instead of related particle tools such as design_set_particle_motion, design_set_particle_depth, or design_randomize_particles. The particle-layer context implies usage, but no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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