add_force_field

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 'Add' and lists arguments; it does not state whether a new object is created, how the active selection is affected, whether repeated calls stack force fields, or what the tool returns. This is a shallow behavioral profile for a mutating tool.

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 compact, but not every line earns its place. The name, strength, and flow lines mostly restate the parameter names, adding little value. The genuinely useful enum and location-format details are buried in an Args block rather than being highlighted.

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?

This is a minimal viable description: it names the action and documents every parameter at a basic level, so a simple call can be constructed. But with no annotations and no output schema, it omits important context such as coordinate-space meaning, units, force-field behavior, and whether any cleanup or follow-up is needed.

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 add meaning. It does add useful information: the field_type value list and the [x, y, z] location format. But 'strength: Field strength' and 'flow: Field flow' are tautological, no units or effect semantics are provided, and the 'etc.' enum list is incomplete and contains the typo 'LENARD_JONES'.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add a force field effect.' This clearly identifies the operation and differs from physics siblings like add_rigid_body or add_cloth_physics. However, 'effect' is slightly vague about whether this creates a standalone force-field object or modifies an existing simulation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related tools. It does not mention physics contexts, mention alternatives like create_particle_field, or state any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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