create_rigid_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It honestly discloses the core effect and the 'move as one' behavior, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or how the group interacts with existing joints/constraints.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and core behavior.

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 simple two-parameter operation, the description is workable, but it lacks caveats around reversibility, failure modes, or relationship to sibling joint/constraint tools. With no annotations and no output schema, a bit more context would make it fully complete.

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 description adds meaning to component_names by specifying '2+' components and the rigid-group behavior. However, because schema description coverage is 0%, the optional 'name' parameter is left completely unexplained, and the item schema for component_names is empty.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lock') with a clear resource ('2+ components') and explains the result ('they move as one'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_joint or drive_joint.

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 phrase 'Lock 2+ components together' implies when to use it, and the 2+ constraint is helpful. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives such as create_joint or ground_component.

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