create_particles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful trait—'fresh ParticleProcessMaterial'—indicating a new sub-resource is created, but it does not disclose overwrite behavior for existing nodes, error handling for invalid parent paths, default property application, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler words. It efficiently communicates the core action, target resource, and placement context, earning its place entirely.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is inadequate. It covers only the basic add-node action and leaves parameter behavior, side effects, and edge cases entirely unexplained.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only references parent_path (the required param) and hints at the 2D/3D distinction via 'GPUParticles2D/3D'. Seven other parameters (amount, emitting, lifetime, one_shot, randomness, explosiveness, name) have no descriptive explanation anywhere.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') with a specific resource ('GPUParticles2D/3D node with a fresh ParticleProcessMaterial') and location scope ('under parent_path'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like add_node and from material-configuration tools like set_particle_material or apply_particle_preset.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many related siblings (e.g., apply_particle_preset, set_particle_material, add_node). Usage context is only implied by the action verb; there are no alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned.

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