add_force_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by explaining each force type's physical behavior, strength ranges, negative-direction behavior, flow for WIND, falloff, and max distance. It still leaves out permission requirements and broader scene side effects, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 purpose is front-loaded, then a structured Args list follows with one line per parameter. The final Returns line is slightly redundant because an output schema exists, but it is short and does not disrupt the otherwise efficient structure.

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 an 11-parameter creation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description provides enough information to call it correctly. The remaining gaps are primarily usage routing relative to sibling tools and explicit side-effect constraints.

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 documents all 11 parameters. It explains enum meanings for type and falloff_type, gives ranges for strength, flow, noise, seed, and falloff_power, and clarifies name, location, rotation, and max_distance.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: add a force field. It also states the affected simulation entities (cloth, particles, soft and rigid bodies), which clearly distinguishes it from physics setup siblings such as add_cloth_sim or add_rigid_body.

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?

Usage is only implied by the affected bodies and the enumerated field types; there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives among the many physics-related siblings.

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