blender_manage_physics

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it can modify/destroy data. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating actions (add, configure, remove, bake, free_bake) but doesn't elaborate on consequences of specific actions like baking or removing. Still, the combination with annotations provides sufficient transparency.

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 sentences long, with the first sentence listing actions and types, and the second sentence giving usage guidance. No redundant information. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, multiple actions), the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage boundaries, and behavioral cues. No output schema is present, but the description doesn't need to explain return values for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters documented. The description adds marginal value by summarizing the tool's purpose and listing physics types, but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already defines. 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 clearly states the tool adds, configures, removes, or bakes physics simulations, listing specific physics types (rigid body, cloth, soft body, etc.). It uses a specific verb+resource structure that distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_get_object_data, which is for reading physics data.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when: you need physics simulations on objects' and 'Do NOT use for: reading physics data (use blender_get_object_data with include=['physics'])'. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an explicit alternative sibling.

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