add_physics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that physics will be added and lists types, but it does not describe side effects on the target object, whether existing physics are replaced, prerequisites, or other behavioral consequences.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the type enum is the only additional content, making it appropriately compact for the information it offers.

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?

For an add/creation tool with no annotations, the lack of object semantics and the absence of guidance about when to use this tool versus the specialized physics setup siblings leave important context missing. The output schema may cover return values, but prerequisites, consequences, and parameter semantics are insufficiently explained.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's bare string parameters. It does add meaning by enumerating valid type values (RIGID_BODY, CLOTH, FLUID, SOFT_BODY, COLLISION), but it leaves the 'object' parameter completely unexplained—it does not say what the object identifier refers to or how it should be formatted.

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 action ('Add') and the resource ('a physics simulation'), and it lists the supported simulation types. However, it does not differentiate add_physics from specialized siblings like setup_rigid_body_world or setup_cloth_sim, leaving the distinction to be inferred from the type parameter.

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 no guidance about when to use add_physics versus the specialized setup_* physics tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The listed types imply intended usage but do not explain the selection context or alternatives.

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