blender_particles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions creation and management (mutations) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or resource implications (e.g., baking may be compute-intensive). No behavioral traits beyond the operation list are described.

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 concise with a clear bullet list of operations. It front-loads the general purpose and then enumerates operations efficiently. No redundant sentences.

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 8 params and 7 operations, the description covers the operation names but misses parameter-operation mapping and expected outputs (though output schema exists). It is adequate but not comprehensive for complex scenarios.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description lists operations but adds no semantic context about how parameters interact with operations or constraints (e.g., which params apply to which op).

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 creates and manages particle systems, listing 7 specific operations. This verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_physics or blender_animation, which handle broader physics or animation.

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 particle effects but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_physics or blender_mesh. No when-not conditions or alternative references are given.

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