physics-set

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, error behavior, or state changes. It only states the action without explaining what happens on failure, whether the modification is reversible, or if it triggers recalculations. This lack of transparency makes it hard for an agent to anticipate consequences.

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 redundant words. It directly conveys the action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse. No filler or ambiguity in length.

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 tool is a simple setter, and the description covers the core action, but it omits details about return values (though no output schema exists) and error conditions. It doesn't clarify if the 'physics stack' must already exist or if the property path is validated. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is balanced.

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 provides titles for all four parameters ('type', 'value', 'object', 'property'), covering the essentials. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the generic 'set one RNA property', but the parameter names and enum values (e.g., RIGID_BODY, CLOTH) are self-explanatory, so coverage is high. 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 states the verb 'Set' and the resource 'one RNA property on a physics stack', which properly conveys the tool's function. It distinguishes from physics-report (read) and physics-add/remove (structural changes), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from physics-field_set, which could be ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contexts where physics-set is appropriate or list exclusions (e.g., 'use for property modifications, not for creating or deleting physics entities'). This leaves the agent without direction on selection among the many sibling tools.

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