add_rigid_body

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds the note 'memerlukan UI' (requires UI), which is a behavioral requirement not captured by annotations. However, this is vague and does not clarify what the UI requirement entails or any other side effects. Credit is given for adding some extra context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentence with no filler. It directly states the purpose and includes a parenthetical caveat. While minimal, every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded. It could be longer for completeness, but conciseness itself is well-executed.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 7 parameters, the description is extremely brief. It does not explain what adding a rigid body entails, prerequisites, or any side effects beyond the destructive hint from annotations. The UI requirement is ambiguous. For a tool of this complexity, the description is insufficiently 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (mass, shape, animate, friction, body_type, bounciness, object_name). The description provides zero additional meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults. With no descriptions in the schema, this is a significant gap.

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: 'Jadikan objek rigid body' (make object a rigid body), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_object or add_modifier by focusing on rigid body functionality. However, it could be more explicit about the target object and the effect.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which this tool is preferred over other physics-related tools. The description simply states the action without any usage caveats.

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