configure_physics_body

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

With no annotations, the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It adds useful context like atomicity, units, collider approximation options, and the timeline precondition. It does not disclose side effects, persistence behavior, error cases, or the role of command_id/idempotency_key.

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 compact and front-loaded. The purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by efficient enumeration of values, units, and the precondition. No sentence is wasted.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description covers the core physics concepts but omits important context for command_id, idempotency_key, and collider_enabled, and does not clarify what 'atomically configure' means for partial failures or prerequisites beyond the timeline being stopped.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains body_type, approximation, mass_kg, and density_kg_m3, but leaves prim_path, command_id, idempotency_key, and collider_enabled semantically unexplained. This is a significant gap for an 8-parameter tool.

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 opens with a clear verb and object: 'Atomically configure rigid/static body, collider approximation and mass.' This distinguishes it from read-only tools like get_physics_body, though it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like set_physics_params.

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 description provides a clear precondition ('The timeline must be stopped') and enumerates valid values, which gives an agent useful context. However, it never explains when to choose this tool over alternatives such as set_physics_params or get_physics_body, and it lacks explicit exclusions.

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