add_rigid_body

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose some behavior: what ACTIVE vs PASSIVE means and what the return value is. But it omits key operational facts for a mutation tool — whether an existing rigid body is overwritten, whether the object needs to be visible/selected, and any dependency or ordering constraints.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by compact Args and Returns blocks; every line carries information and there is no filler. Slightly formulaic, but appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns line is supplementary rather than required, and parameter coverage is thorough. The remaining gap is the absent when-to-use/alternative guidance, which matters given the many sibling physics tools.

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: all five parameters are documented with meaning, and the numeric ones include ranges (friction 0.0-1.0, restitution 0.0-1.0, mass in kg) plus the enum semantics for type. This is meaningfully richer than the bare 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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Add a rigid body physics simulation to an object.' An agent immediately knows this is a physics-simulation setup tool. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as add_cloth_sim, add_fluid_sim, or add_particle_system, nor from set_physics_property.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., object must be a mesh, object must exist), and no exclusions or pipeline context. The Args block documents parameters but not usage conditions.

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