blender_physics_simulate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the most consequential trait — that apply_results makes positions permanent ('freezes simulation') — hinting at irreversibility. However, it does not disclose that the simulation mutates object transforms during the run, that the operation is compute-intensive, or that apply_results removes rigid bodies, all of which are relevant side effects.

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 efficient sentences with the core action front-loaded. The parenthetical 'freezes simulation' is slightly redundant with 'make the final positions permanent,' but the overall size and ordering are tight and scannable.

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 simple three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the definition is adequate: an agent knows the frame range and the freeze behavior. It falls short on prerequisites (physics objects required, not stated) and on operational side effects (scene mutates, long compute time), and there is no output schema or annotation to carry that burden.

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 schema already fully documents frame_start, frame_end, and apply_results with defaults and meaning. The description adds only the 'freezes simulation' metaphor for apply_results, a useful mental model but not a substantive technical addition beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run the physics simulation for a frame range.' This clearly separates it from sibling physics setup tools (rigid_body_add, cloth_add, soft_body_add, fluid_quick) that configure physics rather than simulate. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or scoping exclusion, so it misses the top score, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 the tool or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., rigid body or cloth objects must already exist in the scene). There are no explicit alternatives, conditions, or exclusions. The only implicit cue is that simulation follows physics setup, which is never stated.

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