physics_set_body_properties

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

The description lists parameters with defaults and ranges, and states the return value (success/error). However, it omits important behavioral details such as the tool's side effects (modifying the scene), prerequisites (node must be a RigidBody), or permission requirements. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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-organized with an 'Args' and 'Returns' section, and the core purpose is stated in the first sentence. Although it includes detailed parameter descriptions, the structure is clean and avoids unnecessary fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 9 parameters with explicit defaults and ranges, and the presence of an output schema (though not detailed), the description provides sufficient context for most use cases. It could be improved by mentioning node type constraints or the fact that properties are applied immediately, but overall it is adequately complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, providing only titles and types. The description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning, default values, valid ranges (e.g., friction 0-1), and units (kg for mass). This adds significant value for correct invocation.

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 action ('Set physics properties') and the resource ('RigidBody2D/3D node'), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'camera_set_properties' or 'particle_set_properties', which target different components.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the category 'Physics' and the resource type give implicit context, there are no exclusions or comparisons to similar tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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