add_collision_shape

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals auto-detection and shape support, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing shapes), error conditions, or permissions needed. Moderate transparency.

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?

Single sentence with appended list of shapes. No redundant information, front-loaded with verb and resource. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and shape types but omits explication for projectPath and scenePath, and does not clarify the interplay between size, radius, and height per shape. Partially 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?

Schema coverage is 71%, so description adds some value beyond schema. It lists shape types mapping to shapeType parameter, but does not explain projectPath, scenePath, or how size/radius/height are used in relation to shape types. Mixed contribution.

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 'Add a collision shape to a physics body' and specifies auto-detection of 2D/3D. It lists supported shapes for each dimension, distinguishing it from generic sibling tools like add_node or set_collision_layer_mask.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., the physics body must exist) or comparisons to related tools like set_collision_layer_mask. The description implies usage by listing shapes, but lacks explicit context.

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