add_particle_system

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add a particle system', which indicates a mutation, but does not state prerequisites (e.g., the object must be a mesh), effects on existing systems, or any side effects. This is a significant gap.

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 concise: a single sentence plus a short type list. Every word contributes relevant information, and the key action is front-loaded. There is no wasted text.

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 tool that adds a particle system, the description fails to mention important context such as whether the target object must already exist, whether multiple systems are allowed, or how this relates to sibling tools like setup_hair. Although an output schema exists, the description itself is too thin to guide correct usage in varied scenarios.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds valuable meaning to the 'type' parameter by listing EMITTER and HAIR as allowed values, which the schema does not constrain. However, it provides no explanation for 'name' or 'object', leaving those parameters semantically under-specified.

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 action ('Add') and the resource ('a particle system'), and specifies allowed types (EMITTER, HAIR). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_particle_system, set_particle_property, and setup_hair, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to choose this over setup_hair or how it relates to existing particle systems on an object. The description lacks any contextual or exclusionary hints.

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