updateParticles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe effects (e.g., whether changes are immediate, reversible, or require specific permissions), side effects (e.g., impact on animations or scene state), or error conditions (e.g., invalid IDs). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part earning its place by conveying the core action and target.

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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, usage context, and return values. For a mutation tool in a graphics/scene management context with rich siblings, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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 low (13%, with only the 'id' parameter documented), and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the generic 'properties.' It doesn't explain what 'position,' 'color,' 'size,' etc., mean in context, their units, valid ranges, or default behaviors. With 7 of 8 parameters undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Update') and resource ('properties of an existing particle system'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'createParticles' (creation vs. update) and 'deleteParticles' (update vs. deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'updateObject' or 'updateLight' which might handle similar property updates for different resource types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing particle system ID), exclusions (e.g., what properties cannot be updated), or comparisons to siblings like 'updateObject' (for general objects) or 'createParticles' (for new systems). Usage is implied only by the verb 'update,' but no explicit context is given.

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