bake_physics

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention if baking is destructive, whether it modifies the object permanently, or if prior physics setup is required. The return 'Confirmation dict' is vague.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. Parameter descriptions follow a clear format. It could be more concise but is appropriately sized.

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 baking tool, the description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., object must have a physics simulation), effects (e.g., creates keyframes), and error states. The output schema exists but the description doesn't leverage it. Overall, minimally adequate.

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 adds meaning. It explains object_name as 'Name of the object with physics' and physics_type with default behavior ('if empty, bakes all physics'), providing context beyond the schema titles.

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 'Bake a physics simulation for an object', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_physics_property or add_rigid_body by focusing on the bake action.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description solely states what it does without usage context.

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