Release baked physics simulation data to restore the original simulation state. Use this tool to clear cached physics results and reset object behavior.
Free baked physics simulation data. Irreversible.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the word 'Irreversible', which reinforces but does not significantly expand beyond the annotation. It does not explain what exactly is freed (per object or scene-wide) or any side effects, but given the annotation, this is a minor gap.
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 extremely short: 'Free baked physics simulation data. Irreversible.' It is concise and front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices essential details. It is not bloated, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
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 a destructive operation with an output schema (which is not described), the description is incomplete. It does not specify the scope (single object vs all objects), the exact effect on the simulation cache, or the return value. The agent cannot fully anticipate the outcome. Given the tool's simplicity, more context is needed.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter 'object' is undocumented. The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess what 'object' refers to (e.g., which object's baked data). With no schema description and no compensation in the tool description, this is a critical 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 states a specific verb 'Free' and a resource 'baked physics simulation data', clearly indicating the action. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'bake_physics' (the opposite) but does not explicitly differentiate from other deletion-like tools such as 'delete_collection' or 'remove_physics', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for freeing memory after baking, nor does it contrast with 'bake_physics' or 'remove_physics'. The only hint is 'Irreversible', which is a warning but not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.