set_physics_property

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

Without annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses it sets a property and returns a confirmation dict, but omits side effects (e.g., whether it's destructive), permissions required, or error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Concise with a clear structure: purpose sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary text, but could be more compact by inline description.

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?

Missing critical details like valid property names for each physics type, error scenarios when physics_type mismatches existing simulation, and confirmation dict structure. Given moderate complexity (4 params, no enums), the description is insufficient for reliable tool use.

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 by explaining object_name, physics_type with options, property as dependent on type, and value. However, value lacks type specification, and property's valid values are not enumerated, leaving ambiguity.

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 'Set a property on an existing physics simulation', specifying verb and resource. The list of physics types (RIGID_BODY, CLOTH, FLUID, PARTICLE_SYSTEM) aids in distinguishing from sibling tools that create or bake physics, though not explicit differentiation.

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 versus alternatives like add_cloth_sim or bake_physics. The description implies it's for modifying existing simulations but does not provide usage context or exclusions.

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