game_physics_body

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

With no annotations for readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, the description carries full burden. 'Configure' implies mutation but no side effects, permissions, or constraints are disclosed. The single-line description lacks behavioral depth.

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 (14 words). Every word earns its place, but it is slightly under-specified given the tool's complexity.

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 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema or annotations, the description provides insufficient context. It does not mention return values, error behavior, or prerequisite steps, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond listing examples like 'mass' and 'velocity', which are already documented. 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 clearly states the verb 'Configure' and the resource 'physics body properties', with explicit examples (mass, velocity). It distinguishes from sibling physics tools like 'game_physics_2d' and 'game_physics_3d', which handle broader physics worlds.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.

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