game_add_collision

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

The description states only the action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether multiple collisions can be added, side effects, or required permissions. With no annotations providing safety hints, the description fails to convey mutation behavior or constraints.

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 a single efficient sentence, no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

With 6 parameters, 2 required, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not help the agent understand parameter usage or expected behavior, relying entirely on the schema.

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?

All 6 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what's already provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Add' and resource 'collision shape', clearly identifying the tool's action. It also specifies the target 'physics body node', distinguishing it from sibling tools like game_shape_2d or game_physics_body.

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, no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., parent node existence), and no indication of when not to use it.

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