Rocky Create Particle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but discloses almost nothing. It implies a mutation (create) yet says nothing about required project state, permissions, persistence, reversibility, or whether defaults are applied to unspecified fields.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with no filler. However, that brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined conciseness, so it doesn't merit a 5.

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 creation/mutation tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema explanation, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but the absence of behavioral or usage context leaves an agent insufficiently equipped to call it correctly in a configured study.

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 100%, so the schema already documents name, unit, shape, and sieve_size, including that sieve_size drives mass and throughput. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a clear verb ("Create") and resource ("Rocky particle definition"), so an agent knows it produces a particle entity. It doesn't differentiate it from other creation siblings or explain what a particle definition is, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It never says whether a particle must be attached to an inlet or configured within a project, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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