delete_physics

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 merely states the action without explaining what 'all physics' entails (e.g., rigid body, cloth, fluid), whether it reverts the object to a pre-physics state, or if it removes baked simulations. As a destructive operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence plus an argument list—with no wasted words. The key action is front-loaded, and the parameter is listed clearly. This is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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 purpose and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify which physics components are removed, whether the action is reversible, or how it relates to sibling physics tools (e.g., whether it also clears baked keyframes). An agent needs more context to call this correctly and safely.

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 only parameter, object_name, is described as 'Target object,' which adds minimal meaning over the schema's 'Object Name' by clarifying its role. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more thoroughly—for example, by noting that the object must exist or that the name is case-sensitive. The current explanation is barely sufficient.

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 'Remove all physics from an object' clearly states the verb (remove) and resource (physics from an object), and identifies the target parameter. It differentiates from siblings like add_rigid_body and add_cloth_physics, though it doesn't explicitly note which types of physics are affected. Overall, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to remove physics rather than add or configure them). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the object having existing physics, or of conditions where this tool should be avoided. The agent is left to infer use cases.

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