add_fluid_sim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is a 'Confirmation dict with fluid settings,' but omits essential mutational context: whether the object must be a mesh, what happens if a fluid sim already exists, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. For a write-style physics tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 text is short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and arguments/returns listed afterward. The Args/Returns structure is standard and readable, though the return line duplicates information already carried by the output schema.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed in detail. The description does well with parameters, but for a mutation tool with no annotations it is still thin on behavioral and prerequisite context, leaving an agent without guidance on side effects or required object state.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines object_name, explains that type maps to DOMAIN (container), FLOW (emitter), or EFFECTOR (obstacle), and clarifies that domain_type is GAS (smoke/fire) or LIQUID and only used with DOMAIN. That adds real meaning beyond the bare enum values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a fluid physics simulation to an object.' It clearly identifies the tool's scope (fluid simulation) and separates it from cloth or rigid-body siblings by naming the simulation type. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with adjacent physics tools like add_cloth_sim or add_rigid_body, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The description only lists arguments and a return value; it never explains under what conditions an agent should pick this tool over add_cloth_sim, add_rigid_body, or set_physics_property.

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