add_rigid_body

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior by explaining ACTIVE vs PASSIVE types and parameter ranges, but fails to mention side effects like replacing existing physics, object type requirements, or performance implications.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, each sentence is informative, and there is no redundant information. Could be slightly more concise by omitting the Return line if output schema is provided, but still effective.

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?

While the description covers parameters and return intent, it lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., object must exist and be selected), potential errors, or interaction with other physics systems. The return value is only vaguely described as a 'confirmation dict'.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining each parameter with purpose, units (kg, coefficient), and valid range (0.0-1.0 for friction and restitution), adding significant value 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'rigid body physics simulation to an object', making it distinct from sibling tools like add_cloth_sim or add_fluid_sim.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives; the description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.