set_particle_property

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

The only annotation is idempotentHint: true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds a list of possible property values but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., the object must have a particle system), or validation behavior. Since the description carries a moderate transparency burden with sparse annotations, this is a partial disclosure.

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 sentence that lists the core resource and possible property values. Every word is informative, with no repetition or filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the property list is a useful summary.

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 is minimal but covers the essential scope. It does not explain what values the 'value' parameter should take for each property (e.g., units for lifetime, enumeration for emit_from), nor does it state that the target object must already have a particle system. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the behavioral context and value semantics are still incomplete, leaving the agent to guess or probe.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by naming five valid values for the 'property' parameter, which is the key parameter. It does not clarify object and system parameter meanings, but those are predictable from naming conventions. It also does not specify value formats, but the schema's type union (number/integer/boolean) provides some baseline. The explicit property list adds significant value.

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 'Set' and the resource 'particle system property', and explicitly enumerates the specific properties (count, lifetime, emit_from, physics_type, size). This distinguishes it from other setter tools like set_material_property or set_light_property. The verb+resource combination is specific and 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?

The description implies this tool is for setting particle system properties, which is clear from the name and sibling context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the strong resource specificity provides clear context. No exclusions are mentioned, so a score of 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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