bake_physics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not say that baking is a heavy/long-running write operation, whether it overwrites an existing bake, or whether physics must already exist on the object — all material facts for a mutation tool.

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 with the core action in one sentence, and the Args block is clean. The 'Returns: Confirmation dict' line is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little.

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?

For a destructive-ish, potentially slow simulation bake with no annotations, the description covers arguments adequately but omits operational context (duration, overwrite behavior, prerequisites). The output schema does relieve it of return-value detail.

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 document both parameters, including the non-obvious semantics that an empty physics_type bakes all physics on the object. The enum values themselves are self-descriptive and left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 and resource ('Bake a physics simulation for an object'), which is clearly distinct from sibling mutation tools like add_cloth_sim or set_physics_property. It does not, however, contrast itself with those siblings, so an agent must infer when baking is the right call versus adding or configuring physics.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that physics must already be attached to the object), and no mention of related tools such as set_physics_property or add_particle_system. The only usage hint is the inferred effect of leaving physics_type empty.

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