bodies_to_components

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states that world position is preserved, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether original bodies are deleted, or if the operation is reversible. This leaves gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately provides the mapping format and usage justification. There is no fluff; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and input format. It omits potential side effects (e.g., behavior on original bodies) but otherwise provides a solid operational understanding.

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?

The schema describes only 'mapping' as an object with no additional properties, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explicitly defining the format: 'mapping is {body_name: new_component_name}'. This adds crucial meaning and clarity beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Convert root-level bodies into named components, preserving world position.' It specifies the resource (bodies) and the result (components), and distinguishes from siblings by explaining that joints require components, not bodies.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Multi-body designs need this before joint/motion work — Fusion's joints operate on components, not bodies.' It explains when it should be used but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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