set_rigid_body_world

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose a non-obvious side effect (the world is created if missing) and states the return value covers every setting after the change, but it says nothing about persistence in the .blend file, whether existing settings are reset when omitted (all params default to null), or how this interacts with baking.

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?

Well structured and front-loaded: one-line purpose, then a diagnostic/tuning hint, then Args, then Returns. Every block serves a purpose; the Args block is a standard, scannable form rather than padding.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return contents beyond the one line it gives, and it covers all five parameters plus the create-if-missing behavior. What remains thin is the null-default semantics (does omitting a field leave it unchanged?) for a 5-param mutation tool with no annotations.

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 largely does: all five parameters are documented with meaning, valid ranges, and defaults (substeps_per_frame 1-1000 default 10, solver_iterations 1-1000 default 10, use_split_impulse purpose). The one flaw is the internally inconsistent time_scale spec ('0 to 100 (0.5 is slow motion)'), which leaves the actual scale ambiguous.

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: 'Tune the rigid body simulation for the scene', and adds the important scope detail that the world is created if it does not exist. It does not explicitly separate itself from nearby siblings such as add_rigid_body, add_rigid_body_constraint, set_physics_property, or bake_physics, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Gives concrete diagnostic triggers for tuning ('when fast or stacked objects jitter, pass through each other, or joints stretch' and which two settings to raise), which is genuinely actionable guidance. It stops short of saying when to choose this tool over set_physics_property or add_rigid_body, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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