physics-field_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'set' without mentioning side effects, reversibility, or idempotency. The tool mutates state but gives no warning or confirmation details.

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 fluff. However, it is overly minimal; it omits essential information, so while it's efficient, it's not effective. Structure is fine but content is sparse.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain return values, errors, or specific force field property examples. For a 3-parameter tool, this is inadequate.

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 has zero descriptions, so the description must explain parameters. It only repeats parameter names ('object', 'property', 'value') and adds a vague 'RNA property identifier' for property. No detail on value format (JSON string) or how properties are referenced. Fails to compensate for schema gap.

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 indicates the action (set) and the target (RNA property on object's force field). It distinguishes from siblings like physics-field_report (report) and physics-set (general set), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description provides no usage conditions or comparisons to siblings.

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