physics-add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it replaces existing stacks, requires the object to exist, or modifies in place), nor any prerequisites or error conditions.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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 schema is simple and there are no annotations, so the description is minimally acceptable. However, it does not mention return values, side effects, or edge cases (e.g., behavior when an object already has a physics stack), which leaves some gaps for a complete 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 input schema provides titles for both parameters ('Physics stack type' and 'Object to edit'), which partially covers semantics. The description does not add further explanation, but the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, keeping the score at baseline for high schema 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?

The description clearly states the action (Add) and the resource (physics stack) and target (object). It distinguishes from siblings like 'physics-remove' and 'physics-set' by indicating the action of adding.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It relies on the tool name and sibling context, but lacks explicit guidance such as 'use this to create a new physics stack rather than modifying an existing one'.

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