setup_rigid_body_world

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Configure', implying a mutation that likely affects the scene's physics settings, but it omits key behaviors such as whether it creates a new world if none exists, whether it overrides existing settings, or what the return value indicates. It's adequate but thin.

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 sentence, highly concise, and front-loads the main purpose. However, given the lack of depth, the conciseness is more under-specification than efficient delivery of necessary information, but it still earns a 4 for brevity.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 optional param), the description is almost sufficient. The output schema exists, so return requirements are covered. What's missing is a note on how this fits into the physics workflow (e.g., use before adding rigid body objects) and when to call it, but for a one-line tool this is acceptable.

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 description names the 'collection' parameter's role implicitly by mentioning 'collection', but it doesn't explain what the collection is used for (e.g., which objects belong to the rigid body world). With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it only provides minimal context, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Configure') and resource ('rigid body world and collection'), so the primary purpose is understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'configure' entails (e.g., gravity, damping, collection membership), making it only moderately distinguishing from other setup tools like setup_cloth_sim or create_light_rig.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_physics or setup_softbody. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must have a rigid body world already?), nor does it state exclusions, so an agent must infer usage context from the name alone.

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