createParticles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses technical implementation details (GPU-efficient point sprites) and behavioral traits like optional drift animation and twinkle effects, but doesn't mention performance implications of high particle counts, whether particles persist across scenes, or what happens on creation failure. It adds some context but leaves gaps.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the purpose and examples, the second adds technical implementation and key features. No wasted words, well-structured and front-loaded.

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 creation tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and technical context but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or performance constraints. It's complete enough for basic understanding but has gaps for a complex creation tool.

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 14 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'create' and the resource 'particle system', specifying it can create various types (stars, dust, sparks, snow, fire embers, laser trails). It distinguishes from siblings like createObject or createLight by focusing specifically on particle systems with GPU-efficient point sprites.

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 usage for creating visual particle effects with optional animations, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like createObject for non-particle objects or updateParticles for modifying existing systems. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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