blender_msfs_create_collision_box

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a box collision primitive is created and implies efficiency, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing collision data is replaced, whether a new collider object is created, or how collision_type affects the result.

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 filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the efficiency note is a compact, useful addition.

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?

For a tool in a specialized MSFS collision pipeline with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain return values, prerequisites such as whether the object must already exist, interaction with existing collision setups, or how the collision primitive relates to MSFS export validation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents object_name, padding, and collision_type, including the enum values. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('box collision primitive for an object'), and the phrase 'box collision primitive' distinguishes it from mesh-based or convex collision sibling tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the resource type is clear enough to identify the intended operation.

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 parenthetical 'most efficient for physics' gives an implied usage hint, suggesting this is the lightweight collision option. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over blender_msfs_create_collision_mesh or blender_msfs_create_collision_convex, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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