set_default_gravity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely states the action without disclosing side effects, persistence, required permissions, or reversibility. The parameter description in the schema provides some context (2D vs 3D values), but the tool description itself lacks behavioral depth.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant or missing words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient for a simple parameter setter.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimal but adequate. However, it does not explain the distinction from sibling tools like set_gravity, and it omits any mention of project-level implications or persistence.

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 100%, with the parameter 'value' already described via examples (980.0 for 2D, 9.8 for 3D). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Set the default gravity magnitude in project settings' clearly states the verb (Set) and resource (default gravity magnitude) with context (in project settings). The word 'default' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like set_gravity, but it does not explicitly differentiate them.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_gravity. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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