blender_physics_rigid_body_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states the core effect (participates in physics and is either active or passive), which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or what happens if the object already has a rigid body.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with zero filler. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying the key behavioral distinction.

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 single-object setup tool with fully documented parameters, the purpose and behavioral mode are adequately covered. It could be more complete by pointing to the batch sibling or noting prerequisites, but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the body_type semantics ('active'/'passive'), but that information is already in the schema's parameter descriptions, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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 and resource: 'Add a rigid body physics simulation to an object.' It also explains the active/passive distinction, which makes it easy to distinguish from cloth/soft/fluid simulation tools and from the batch sibling by emphasizing a single object.

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 context is clear: use this when an object should participate in rigid body physics as a dynamic or static body. It does not explicitly name alternatives like blender_physics_rigid_body_batch or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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