fijar_dinamica

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it explains that non-respondable dynamic bodies fall through the floor, that dinamico=False anchors the shape, that negative friction means 'do not touch', and that density mass calculation only works on convex shapes. It does not cover side effects like reversibility or errors, but the provided failure modes and sentinel-value semantics are substantial.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then uses line-separated parameter definitions without filler. Each sentence adds useful information, especially the warnings about non-respondable bodies and density constraints.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the main behaviors, parameter semantics, edge cases, and the workflow context after crear_primitiva. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return-value explanation is acceptable; nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining five of six parameters with units (kg/m³), sentinel meanings (0 = don't touch mass, negative = don't touch friction), and physical consequences. Only 'nombre' is left to its self-evident title, which is a minor gap for low coverage.

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 action—'Deja una forma lista para el motor de física'—with a clear resource ('forma') and scope (mass, contact, friction). It positions the tool relative to the sibling flow by calling it 'el paso que falta entre crear_primitiva y tener un robot,' which distinguishes it from creation/placement siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to call it: after creating a primitive, before the object behaves physically; without it a shape is 'decorado' and neither falls nor pushes. It gives clear context but does not name exclusions or alternative tools such as fijar_posicion, so it stops short of a full when-not guide.

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