Image → particles

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that it builds a new baseCOMP with a specific node structure, may pop the macOS mic-permission dialog when using audio device, resolves sentinel paths, and returns a JSON block with container path, particle count, output path, etc. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the purpose and includes only relevant details. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be better structured with separations for defaults, return value, and alternatives. Still, every sentence earns its place.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it explains the pipeline, default behaviors, return format, permission caveats, and even path resolution quirks ('bare 'Banana.tif' does NOT resolve'). The agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context for some parameters (e.g., default source is Banana.tif, audio_source options) but mostly relies on the schema. It does not introduce meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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+resource: 'Turn any image (a file path or an existing TOP) into a GPU particle field'. It details the mechanism (rest position per pixel, colour sampling, spring force) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings: 'This is the only particle tool seeded by image/video pixels... pick a sibling instead when particles are NOT driven by an image'.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is given, naming four alternative tools with their use cases: 'create_gpu_particle_field for a free noise/curl/gravity drift field, create_particle_flock for boids/flocking, create_pop_particle_system for TouchDesigner's native POP particle network, create_particle_system for a simple CPU emitter'. It also clarifies default behavior and opt-in audio sources, including a permission caveat.

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