create_physics_scene

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the created ground plane and a prerequisite call, but does not disclose whether an existing scene is replaced, whether the operation is destructive, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a create-style tool.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. The prerequisite call is stated early, and the parameter notes are concise without duplicating every schema field.

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 sufficient to make a default call and understand the main parameters, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is not needed. However, it does not explain the side effects, the difference between this and stage/scene creation siblings, or the optional command_id/idempotency_key parameters, leaving some gaps for an agent evaluating the full context.

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?

The Args section adds meaningful meaning for gravity ('Default is standard gravity') and scene_name ('Name for the physics scene prim'), which goes beyond the bare schema titles and defaults. However, command_id and idempotency_key are undocumented in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the verb/resource: 'Create a physics scene with ground plane.' This is specific enough to identify the tool's function and distinguish it from many siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from related scene-creation tools like new_stage or create_object.

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 instruction to 'Call get_scene_info first to verify connection' gives a clear prerequisite and implies the tool should be used after confirming the stage connection. It does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance is useful but incomplete.

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