add_physics

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the primary add operation and does not disclose side effects, idempotency, dependencies on an existing model, or error behavior.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The parenthetical examples are useful and compact, though the overall terseness limits its completeness.

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?

Given no annotations, low schema coverage, nested settings, and several sibling tools, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It identifies the operation but leaves important invocation details and usage context unspecified.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only adds meaning to the 'interface' parameter by listing example values like ht, spf, and tds. The 'tag' and 'settings' parameters remain unexplained, and settings is a nested object that could benefit from clarification.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a physics interface', with concrete examples of interface types. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_sphere, add_material, and add_study.

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 intended usage is implied by the resource type: use this tool when adding a physics interface rather than a geometry, material, or study. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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