spine_add_physics_constraint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is an additive/mutating operation, requires Spine 4.2+, has a channel activation prerequisite, and can be animated with physics.wind/gravity/reset. It does not cover permission needs, side effects on existing constraints, or error behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation 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 front-loaded with purpose, version, effect, and the key activation rule before moving into parameter documentation. The Args section is efficient and uses ranges/defaults well, though it should have included the required identifier parameters rather than omitting them.

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 18-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no schema property descriptions, so the description needs to be fairly complete. It explains the physics behavior and most optional parameters, and an output schema exists for return values, but it leaves out required project/name/bone semantics and order, which are important for correct 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 add parameter meaning, and it does for most physics parameters by giving ranges, defaults, and semantics for x/y/rotate/scale_x/shear_x, inertia, strength, damping, mass, wind, gravity, mix, limit, and fps. However, it omits meaning for required parameters project, name, bone, and the optional order parameter, which is a notable gap given zero schema coverage.

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: adding a physics constraint, with clear effect examples such as hair, tails, ears, and cloth. The physics-spring framing distinguishes it from sibling constraint tools like spine_add_ik_constraint, spine_add_transform_constraint, and spine_add_path_constraint without needing to name them.

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?

It gives clear usage context: Spine 4.2+, spring-like bone reaction, hair/tail/ear/cloth scenarios, and the requirement that at least one channel parameter be greater than 0. It does not explicitly compare when to use this instead of other constraint types, but the effect-based context is strong.

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