game_create_joint

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

Annotations are minimal (only title), so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states creation without detailing side effects, required node existence, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentence (8 words) that front-loads the purpose. While efficient, it could include a brief usage hint 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?

Given the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too thin. It fails to explain the joint creation process, the role of parentPath, or how different joint types use parameters. Schema descriptions partially compensate but not fully.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The tool description adds no additional context beyond what is in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 "Create a physics joint between two bodies" is a specific verb+resource, clearly stating the tool's function. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like game_physics_body or game_physics_2d, which deal with broader physics setup.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other physics tools) or when not to use it. It lacks explicit context for selection, such as prerequisites or limitations.

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