editor_create_gpu_particles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that a node is created; it does not mention side effects, whether the node is selected, undo behavior, error conditions, or any other behavioral details.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the essential purpose. There is no wasted wording, and every word contributes meaning.

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 simple node-creation tool with a well-described schema, the one-sentence description is mostly sufficient, but the lack of annotations or output schema means some context (return value, failure modes, prerequisite checks) is missing. It is adequate but not rich.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (name, parent, properties) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. However, it also adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('GPUParticles3D node') with an explicit location ('in the open scene'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create tools for other node types.

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 phrase 'in the open scene' implies the prerequisite of an open scene, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as editor_set_particles_param or other create tools. Usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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