set_physics_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Set physics properties' but does not mention side effects (e.g., enabling simulation), required component state, or that the operation modifies an existing component. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the agent lacks behavioral clarity.

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?

While the description is a single concise sentence, it is under-specified. Given 7 parameters, omitting parameter explanations makes it insufficiently informative. The description should be longer to cover essential details, so conciseness here is a detriment.

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?

With no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not shown, the description fails to provide necessary context. The tool has 7 parameters and modifies a component, yet no prerequisites, return values, or usage patterns are described. This is far from complete.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain any of the seven parameters (mass, linear_damping, etc.), leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide. 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 'Set physics properties on a Blueprint component' clearly states the action (set) and target (physics properties on a Blueprint component). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_static_mesh_properties' and 'set_mesh_material_color'. However, it does not list the specific properties (mass, damping, etc.), which would add more precision.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description merely states the action without context for decision-making.

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