set_physics_engine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'set', implying a mutation, but does not disclose what happens after setting—e.g., whether settings reset, runtime effects, or if a restart is needed. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 one sentence of 6 words, front-loaded, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks usage context and behavioral transparency, which are important for a tool with a potentially significant impact on the physics engine.

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 coverage is 100% with a descriptive enum and field description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'set' and the resource 'physics engine backend', indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like set_physics_fps or set_gravity. However, it could be more specific by listing the available options (default, godot_physics, jolt) directly in the description.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, side effects, or typical scenarios (e.g., when switching engine types). Sibling tools exist with related but different purposes, yet no differentiation is offered.

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