blender_particles

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), leaving the description to carry the burden. The description lists multiple mutating operations (create, bake, control, set) which implies scene modification, but it does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing particles, performance costs of baking, or prerequisites. It adds some context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 efficiently structured with a one-sentence summary followed by a bulleted list of operations. It is slightly long due to the list, but each line earns its place and information is easy to scan. Front-loading the core purpose works well.

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 multi-operation complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description effectively outlines what operations are available. It does not explain when to choose each operation, but the operation names are self-descriptive. It lacks a note on prerequisites (e.g., object existence), but the parameter schema and output schema fill in most gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by listing the valid values for the 'operation' parameter, which the schema does not provide as an enum. This helps the agent understand the operation sub-types beyond the schema's generic 'Particle operation type'.

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, set physics), using a specific verb plus resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on particle-related functionality.

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 through its title and operation list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus closely related siblings like blender_physics or blender_animation. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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