collision_set_layers

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 states 'configure' (mutation) but does not specify whether this overwrites existing layers/masks, if the node must exist, or any side effects. It lacks details on required permissions or error conditions.

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 well-structured with a main sentence, a category label, a list of parameters, and a returns line. It is concise and front-loaded. The only minor issue is the inclusion of 'Category: Collision' which, while useful, adds some redundancy. Overall, it is efficient.

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 tool that modifies two optional parameters on a node, the description covers the basics. However, it omits what happens when parameters are null (likely not updated), whether the node type is validated, and any constraints on the bitmask values. An output schema exists but is not shown, so we assume return structure is minimal.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by providing one-line explanations for each parameter. It clarifies that collision_layer is 'which layers this object is on' and collision_mask is 'which layers this object can collide with'. However, it does not explain the bitmask format (e.g., integer representing binary flags).

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 the tool configures collision layers and masks for a CollisionObject node. The verb 'configure' and the specific resource (collision layers/masks) make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like collision_add_shape which deal with shapes, not layers.

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 other collision-related tools (e.g., collision_set_shape_properties). It does not mention prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate. Users must infer usage from the name alone.

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