Applies rigid or soft body dynamics to a specified object in Cinema 4D for realistic physical simulation.
Add dynamics (rigid or soft) to the specified object.
Args:
object_name: Name of the object to apply dynamics to
dynamics_type: Type of dynamics to apply (rigid, soft)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_name | Yes | ||
| dynamics_type | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states only that dynamics are 'added' but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, modifies the object in place, requires an existing object, or how repeated applications behave. This is a significant gap for a mutation-style 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 efficiently brief, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is scannable. It loses one point because the parameter descriptions are sparse and the formatting follows a code docstring style rather than a more agent-friendly natural language structure.
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?
The tool is simple with only two required parameters and an output schema exists, so the description is functionally sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks usage context, alternative routing, and behavioral details, making it incomplete for an agent to decide confidently when this is the right tool.
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%, and the description compensates by naming each parameter and giving brief meanings. It clarifies object_name as the target object and dynamics_type as 'rigid, soft'. However, it does not specify exact accepted values, constraints, case sensitivity, or default behavior for invalid inputs, so the compensation is only partial.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Add dynamics') applied to a specific resource ('the specified object') and distinguishes the two supported dynamics types. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling tool 'create_soft_body', which may overlap for soft dynamics, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_soft_body, add_effector, or other dynamics-related tools. There are no prerequisites or conditions stated, leaving the agent to infer the correct context 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.