create_contact_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Create', which adds little beyond the tool name; it does not state side effects, model requirements, whether the property is persisted, or how it relates to a contact simulation. This is insufficient for an operation with no annotation safety profile.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no filler words, but it is under-specified: a single sentence that states the obvious without elaborating on context or parameters. It is compact but not sufficiently informative for a tool with four parameters and many siblings.

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?

With no annotations, low schema coverage, and a description that only names the action, the tool definition is incomplete for correct invocation. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still fails to explain parameter semantics, prerequisites, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow.

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%, and the description does not mention or explain any of the four parameters. The defaults and titles in the schema provide only minimal clues, and the description does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving 'timeout', 'model_name', and 'friction_coefficient' without meaningful guidance.

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 ('Create') and names a distinct resource ('contact interaction property'), so an agent can tell this is about creating a property object rather than a contact formulation. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related tools like create_surface_to_surface_contact or create_general_contact, so it only meets the 'clear but no sibling differentiation' bar.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as an existing model or part, and no statement about whether the property must be assigned to a contact interaction afterward. The description simply states the action without any usage context.

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