add_cloth_physics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the action and lists parameters. It does not disclose side effects, whether the simulation is added as a modifier or property, whether the object must be a mesh, or how this interacts with existing physics.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact argument list. No filler or redundant content is present.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'adding cloth simulation' actually does, what prerequisites exist, or what the agent should expect after invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all five parameters and adds some meaning, including a numeric range for quality_steps (1-20). However, tension and compression are described near-tautologically as 'Structural tension' and 'Structural compression', and units or behavioral effects are not explained.

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 states a specific operation and resource: 'Add cloth simulation to an object.' This cleanly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_rigid_body and add_fluid_physics by naming the unique simulation 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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as add_rigid_body, add_fluid_physics, or bake_physics. There are no exclusions, conditions, or contextual hints beyond the tool's name.

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