body_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by stating the effect of each operation: 'Configure', 'Apply an impulse', 'Set collision layers and masks', 'Scaffold ... with collision shape', and 'Inspect'. It also discloses 2D/3D support. It stops short of detailing prerequisites, failure modes, or side effects on existing settings, so it is strong but not maximal.

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 tight bulleted list of five operations with signatures and one-line semantics. Every line carries essential information, and the purpose statement is front-loaded. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 bundles five distinct operations alert, the description covers each operation's purpose and parameters, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is unnecessary. The main remaining gap is the absence of error conditions, node prerequisites, and behavior when called on unsupported node types, but the core invocation context is 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%, so the description must compensate entirely for parameter meaning. It does: each operation lists its parameters with defaults (e.g., 'impulse=[0,0]', 'parent_path=""'), and 'configure_body' even names accepted property keys like mass, gravity_scale, and damping. The canonical call shape also clarifies how op and params are structured.

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 opens with 'Physics Body & Collision Management (2D and 3D)' and enumerates five specific operations, each with a verb and resource (e.g., 'apply_impulse', 'set_collision_layer_mask', 'scaffold_character_body'). This clearly communicates what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like physics_manage or joint_manage.

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 operation list gives clear context about what the tool can do, and the header implies this is the tool for physics body and collision management. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling tool names.

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