blender_physics_rigid_body_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly states that it mutates objects by adding physics and that a ground object becomes a PASSIVE collider, but it does not disclose whether existing rigid-body settings are replaced, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the return/result is.

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 short sentences, with the primary action in the first sentence and the optional variation in the second. No filler or duplication of schema details.

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 batched mutation with a fully self-documenting schema, the description supplies the core intent and the key optional behavior. It lacks only explicit guidance on conflicts with existing physics settings or how this relates to simulation tools, which are minor given the schema richness.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of a PASSIVE ground/floor mirrors what the ground_object parameter already documents; it adds no substantive parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Add rigid body physics') and explicitly scopes the operation to 'multiple objects at once,' which differentiates it from the sibling blender_physics_rigid_body_add. The optional ground/floor as PASSIVE collider further clarifies the tool's distinctive capability.

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 batch wording implies this tool is for adding physics to several objects at once, but it never explicitly names the singular sibling alternative or states when not to use it. The ground-object sentence gives useful contextual guidance for the optional parameter, but no explicit when/when-not rules.

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