crear_union_rigida

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains that this tool creates a force sensor, not an actual weld, and that it also measures the force through the union. It clearly states that simply parenting dynamic shapes does not unite them and that this sensor is the actual joining mechanism.

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 longer than minimal, but every paragraph contributes meaningful conceptual or usage information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then builds to a concrete use case. The friction example is illustrative rather than filler.

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?

The description gives strong high-level guidance and even points to the related tool for reading force, and an output schema exists. However, the five parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a significant gap for an agent that must construct valid arguments.

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 0%, and the description does not explain x, y, z, alias, or padre. The parent-child relationship is hinted at by 'se crea colgando del chasis,' but parameter names, units, coordinate frame, and default behavior are left entirely to inference.

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 opens with 'Crea un sensor de fuerza', a specific verb and resource, and immediately clarifies that this is how two dynamic bodies are rigidly joined. It distinguishes itself from alternatives like crear_junta and fusing shapes by explaining exactly when the force-sensor approach is required.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool versus parent-child dynamic linking or fusing shapes, including the friction-coefficient edge case where the force sensor is the only option. It also provides a clear usage pattern: create attached to the chassis, then parent the target piece with emparentar_objeto.

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