collision_set_shape_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates mutation ('Set properties') but fails to disclose side effects, state changes, error conditions (e.g., invalid shape_index), or requirements for shape existence. The return type is vaguely described as 'success message or error description'.

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 sections for category, args, and returns. It front-loads the core function and is free of unnecessary words. The parameter list is clear, though it could be more concise by removing the 'Category' line if redundant.

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 description covers purpose, all parameters with examples, and return type. However, it lacks information on error scenarios, expected behavior for edge cases (e.g., out-of-bounds index), and interaction with other collision tools. Given no output schema details, the return description 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains each parameter's role (project path, scene path, node path, shape index, properties) with an example for 'properties'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 'Set properties of a collision shape' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'collision_add_shape' and 'collision_set_layers', though not explicitly. The category 'Collision' provides further context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'collision_add_shape'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. The category and list of siblings imply context but lack explicit direction.

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