create_physics_joint

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add valuable calling conventions — meters for positions/prismatic limits, degrees for revolute limits, [w,x,y,z] quaternion order, and allowed axis values — which prevent mis-parameterization. However, it omits side-effect behaviors such as what happens if joint_path already exists, whether body0=null means the world frame, and whether a physics scene must already be active.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose statement followed by precise format conventions. Every sentence carries information the schema lacks; there is no boilerplate, no repetition of parameter titles, and no filler.

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 14-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description covers the highest-risk conventions (units, quaternion order, axis choices, joint types) but misses semantics needed for a correct call: body0/body1 reference meaning, whether an omitted body0 denotes the world, path formatting, and how limits apply per joint type. The output schema covers return values, but the remaining parameter gaps keep this from being complete.

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 usefully clarifies units for positions and limits, quaternion order for the local_rotation parameters, and allowed values for axis and joint_type. But it leaves other parameters unexplained: the format of joint_path, whether body0/body1 are scene paths and body0=null means world, and the semantics of collision_enabled, command_id, and idempotency_key.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('physics joint'), and enumerates the supported joint types (fixed, revolute, prismatic) plus the key feature (explicit local frames). This naturally distinguishes it from the read-oriented sibling get_physics_joint and from body-level tools like configure_physics_body.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as configure_physics_body or create_collision_group, and it states no prerequisites (e.g., an existing physics scene, valid body paths). An agent selecting among roughly 130 siblings must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and first sentence.

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