physics_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states removal but does not disclose whether removal is irreversible, what happens to associated boundaries or settings, or if there are safety restrictions. The behavior is minimally disclosed.

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?

Description is concise with a single sentence, then Args/Returns in a standard format. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more detailed without bloat.

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 no output schema, low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for a removal tool. It does not mention return value details, error cases, or permanence of removal, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 0%, so description must explain parameters. It lists physics_name as required and model_name as optional with default null, but does not explain valid values, naming conventions, or where to obtain physics names. The description adds little beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Remove a physics interface from the model,' specifying the verb (remove) and resource (physics interface). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like physics_add (add) and physics_list (list).

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, such as physics_list to verify existence beforehand. No prerequisites or conditions (e.g., physics interface must exist) are mentioned.

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