physics.field_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Set one RNA property' without mentioning side effects, permissions, error handling, or whether the operation is reversible. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 (one sentence) but at the expense of necessary detail. It fronts the verb and resource, but the brevity leaves important gaps. It strikes a balance but leans toward under-specification.

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 output schema, no annotations, and three required parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what objects are valid, what qualifies as an RNA property, or how to format the value. Agents lack sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It mentions 'RNA property' but does not explain the format of 'value' (JSON string) or the allowed property identifiers. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 ('Set') and the resource ('one RNA property on an object's force field'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like physics.set, which may also set properties on physics objects.

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 vs. alternatives such as physics.field_report or physics.set. The description lacks context about the specific use case or conditions for invoking this tool.

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