set_default_linear_damp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (set damping) but not the scope (global vs per-physics body), whether it affects already spawned bodies, or if there are side effects. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks context about the impact on physics simulation or whether it overrides per-body settings. A note about global versus local effect would enhance completeness.

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%, so the schema documents the parameter (type, default, min, description) adequately. The tool description adds no extra semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as units or effect magnitude.

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 linear damping for physics bodies' clearly identifies the action (set) and the resource (default linear damping for physics bodies). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like set_default_gravity or set_physics_material by specifying the exact property.

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_physics_material or adjusting damping per body. The description does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., requires a physics scene), or why you'd choose this over other damping-related tools.

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