editor_set_particles_param

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Set a property' – a mutation – but omits any context about side effects, persistence, error handling, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a write operation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and target. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter setter, the description plus schema gives enough to invoke correctly. However, the lack of output schema and any behavioral detail (return values, errors, mutation consequences) leaves some contextual gaps, especially given the large family of sibling param setters.

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 documents all three parameters with helpful descriptions and examples (e.g., GDScript literal format). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra parameter meaning.

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+resource ('Set a property on a particle system node') and narrows scope to 'the open scene'. This clearly differentiates it from many sibling editor_set_*_param tools by explicitly naming the node type.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar sibling set_param tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implicit signal is the 'particle system node' qualifier, which is not an explicit alternative comparison.

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