set_physics_params

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes well beyond the minimum by revealing atomicity, rollback on failure, USD/runtime read-back verification, synchronization of stage time codes, and the caveat that the launcher-controlled GPU ordinal is unchanged. This is exemplary behavioral transparency.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: atomicity, preconditions, valid ranges, broadphase behavior, and rollback semantics. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately, and the Args section cleanly maps parameters to explanations.

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?

This is a complex mutation tool with no annotations, but the description covers all critical operational aspects: when it can be called, valid inputs, side effects, failure behavior, and what success means. An output schema exists, so the absence of return-value detail is not a gap. The only minor omission is the purpose of command_id and idempotency_key, but this doesn't undermine safe invocation.

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 adds real meaning for gravity, time_step, and gpu_enabled, including value ranges and side effects. However, command_id and idempotency_key remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a partial gap.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Atomically configure Isaac Sim 6 PhysX scene parameters.' It names the key affected settings (gravity, time_step, gpu_enabled), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from physics-related siblings like create_physics_scene or 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 provides clear operational context: the timeline must be stopped, time_step must satisfy specific constraints, and GPU vs MBP broadphase behavior is spelled out. It does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over alternatives, but the prerequisites and constraints give an agent enough context to use it correctly.

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