remove_physics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure fib. It only says 'Remove physics from an object' and fails to disclose side effects, reversible/irreversible nature, whether it applies to all physics types at once, or whether it just detaches physics versus deleting baked data. This is a mutating operation with minimal behavioral context.

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 very concise—a single short sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the action. However, its brevity edges toward under-specification, as no contextual detail about behavior or parameters is included.

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 mutating, 2-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, this description is not complete. It lacks enough explanation about what 'physics' means, what 'type' accepts, and what consequences removing physics has. The sibling set shows a rich physics ecosystem, but this description does not help an agent navigate it.

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 explain the parameters. It does not mention 'type' at all, leaving its meaning ambiguous—could refer to rigid body, cloth, soft body, fluid, or another physics category. 'object' is inferable as the target, but 'type' lacks any clarifying semantics.

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 clear verb ('Remove') and resource ('physics from an object'), and its opposite relationship to sibling add_physics is apparent. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related operations like free_physics_bake or setup_* sim tools, leaving some ambiguity in what 'physics' removal entails.

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 remove_physics versus alternatives such as free_physics_bake, remove_modifier, or cleanup-oriented tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, target object types, or situations where this tool should be preferred.

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