blender_physics_soft_body_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the core effect: adding a soft body simulation to a mesh. However, it does not mention side effects like replacing existing physics settings, whether simulation only appears during playback, or any prerequisites beyond being a mesh object.

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, purposeful sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds relevant conceptual context without any filler or repetition.

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?

The description is minimally viable for a simple 4-parameter tool with fully documented schema fields, but it lacks guidance on choosing soft body over closely related sibling physics tools and does not describe expected results or side effects. Given no annotations and no output schema, a bit more context would be warranted.

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 parameter documentation already explains mass, friction, object_name, and goal_strength. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries the burden sufficiently.

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 soft body simulation to a mesh object.' The second sentence explains the defining physical behavior (deforming under forces while maintaining shape), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like rigid body, cloth, or fluid simulation.

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 behavior description implies when a soft body would be appropriate, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as blender_physics_rigid_body_add, cloth, or fluid. No exclusions or contrast with sibling physics tools are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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