set_physics_properties

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

Although annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds substantial context beyond them: only fields present are touched, it does NOT compile and does NOT save, and NOTHING is read back. It also supplies a concrete verification path (get_blueprint_component_property on each set property). This is richer than what the annotations alone convey.

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?

Front-loaded with scope and the one-own-node constraint, then exclusions, then a clearly separated Returns block and a verification instruction. Dense but every sentence carries decision-relevant information with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it changes, what it deliberately does not do (compile/save), what it returns, how to verify, and the correct alternative for other cases. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the PIE-refusal/force semantics. The description only restates the affected field families (physics sim, mass override, damping) at a high level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (set) and the exact resource it acts on: ONE primitive component TEMPLATE of a Blueprint, explicitly an OWN SCS node and not a placed actor. It names the exact fields touched and explicitly distinguishes itself from set_blueprint_component_property, so an agent can pick it apart from siblings without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (own SCS template physics fields) and when-not-to (inherited components, any other property), and routes the agent to the named alternative set_blueprint_component_property, describing why that sibling wins in those cases (ICH-aware, reaches inherited components). Nothing about applicability is left to inference.

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