collision_add_shape

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details beyond the return format. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing shapes) or prerequisites (e.g., node must be a CollisionObject).

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 structured with clear headings and bullet-style arguments, making it easy to scan. It is reasonably concise, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be more streamlined.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 4 required, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the parameters and return format adequately. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., node must exist) and does not clarify if the shape is appended or replaces existing ones.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning to each parameter: shape_type includes examples like 'RectangleShape2D', and shape_properties explains the JSON format with a concrete example. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal type definitions.

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 'Add a collision shape to a CollisionObject2D/3D node,' specifying the action and target node type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like collision_set_layers and collision_set_shape_properties, which have different purposes.

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, such as when to use collision_set_shape_properties or other collision-related tools. It lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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