blender_particles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It lists operations but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether baking is destructive, if undo is supported, or error handling for missing objects). This lack of behavioral detail leaves the agent uncertain about tool consequences.

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: a one-sentence overview followed by a bulleted list of operations. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the list is easy to parse. While succinct, it could be slightly more integrated (e.g., grouping operations by category) without losing clarity.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple operations) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main operations but does not explain how parameters map to each operation (e.g., particle_count is irrelevant for fire_effect?). It also omits typical behavior like defaults or statefulness. This leaves gaps for agents needing precise parameter usage.

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 schema covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, meeting high coverage (100%). The description adds significant value by listing the possible values for the 'operation' parameter (create_particle_system, etc.), which the schema only describes as 'Particle operation type' without enumeration. This clarifies which operations are available, enabling the agent to choose appropriately.

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 'Create and manage particle systems and effects' and enumerates specific operations (create, control, bake, etc.), making the tool's purpose explicit and well-scoped. This differentiates it from siblings like blender_physics or blender_animation by focusing exclusively on particle-related tasks.

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 implicitly suggests usage: if you need to work with particles, use this tool. However, it does not specify when to avoid it or provide explicit alternatives, such as when to use blender_physics instead. The list of operations implies various use cases but lacks guidance on selection between them.

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