set_particle_material

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

The description adds unit context for spread and velocities, but lacks disclosure of side effects such as whether unspecified properties are preserved, whether a material is created if absent, or any prerequisites. With no annotations, the full burden falls on the description, which does not cover these aspects.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key unit constraints. Every word contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 22 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It omits behavioral details about unset properties, material creation, return values, and prerequisites, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The description adds meaning for some parameters by stating spread is in degrees and velocities use different units in 2D vs 3D. However, with 22 parameters and zero schema descriptions, this covers only a small subset, leaving many parameters semantically under-specified.

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 it sets ParticleProcessMaterial properties on GPUParticles nodes, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_material_3d and set_particle_color_gradient by naming the exact material type and target node.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when needing to set ParticleProcessMaterial properties on GPUParticles nodes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the domain is well-defined. The unit clarifications help guide parameter usage.

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