set_physics_properties

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, yet it only says 'Configure physics simulation' and lists parameters. It does not state whether this is a persistent blueprint mutation, whether recompilation is required, how unspecified properties are affected, or what failure cases exist (e.g., non-primitive component).

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose sentence, followed by a scannable parameter list, a KB pointer, and a minimal invocation example. The parameter list is slightly redundant with the schema but adds enough semantic value to justify its length.

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 all parameters and gives an example, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. It remains incomplete about the operational side effects and selection criteria, which an agent would need when deciding among the many sibling setters.

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 provides zero parameter descriptions, and the description compensates by enumerating every parameter with a meaning, units for mass ('kg'), and a type constraint for component_name. Some entries such as 'Blueprint name' merely restate the schema title, but overall the semantic load is carried adequately.

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 opening sentence 'Configure physics simulation on a primitive component' states a clear verb and resource, and the parameter list shows exactly which physics properties are affected. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like set_component_property or set_static_mesh_properties, but the physics scope is distinctive enough for selection.

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 implies usage for physics configuration and enforces one key prerequisite: 'component_name (must be a PrimitiveComponent)'. However, it gives no decision rule for when to prefer this tool over the many generic setter siblings in the same toolset, nor any when-not-to-use guidance.

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