blender_physics

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

Annotations are all false, providing no safety profile. The description mentions setting up physics and baking but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing physics settings are overwritten), prerequisites (e.g., object selection), or what 'bake' implies for the scene. With minimal annotation coverage, the description fails to carry the behavioral transparency burden.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded scope statement and a single practical example. Every sentence adds value, and there is no 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?

With 15 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more guidance on the typical flow, required inputs for each action, and expected results. It only gives one example scenario and a routing note, leaving much of the tool's behavior unexplained. The agent would need to rely heavily on the schema and trial-and-error.

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 73%, so most parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only implicitly referencing action types. It doesn't explain how parameters like mass, strength, or frames interact, but the schema already does most of the work. 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 identifies the tool as handling physics simulation (rigid bodies, cloth, soft bodies, collision, force fields) and provides a concrete usage example (separate panels as rigid bodies, add collision to chassis, bake). However, it lacks a crisp verb+resource phrasing and doesn't explicitly differentiate from non-physics sibling tools, so it's clear but not perfect.

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?

It gives explicit routing for a specific case: rigid body constraints should use blender_run_operator instead. This provides a clear when-not. However, it doesn't discuss when to use this tool over other physics-related alternatives (none exist among siblings), so the guidance is partial but useful.

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