add_rigid_body

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that rigid body physics is added, which implies mutation, and clarifies body_type semantics (ACTIVE vs PASSIVE), but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), or whether adding physics alters existing simulation state. The description is too sparse to fully inform the agent of the operation's consequences.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean Args list. Every line adds necessary information with no filler. It is well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all parameter semantics and states the core purpose. However, it leaves out usage context such as when to choose rigid body over cloth or fluid physics, and what happens after calling it. For a straightforward physics-add operation, this is mostly sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 fully compensate, and it does. Every parameter is explained beyond the schema: object_name is the target, body_type maps to dynamic vs static/kinematic, mass has units (kg), and friction and restitution have explicit ranges. This is exactly the semantic enrichment needed.

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 verb and resource: 'Add rigid body physics to an object.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_cloth_physics and add_fluid_physics, as the tool name and description specify the exact physics type. The purpose is immediately understandable and not vague or tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when rigid body physics is appropriate, whether it should be used with active objects, or that it can be paired with bake_physics or removed with delete_physics. An agent is left to infer the use case from the tool name alone.

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