joint_manage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the canonical call shape and op handling, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether scaffolding modifies the scene graph), error conditions, required permissions, or reversibility of operations. The get_joint_info operation is read-only but never stated, and configure_joint implies mutation without elaboration.

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 well-structured with a clear header and bullet-like list of operations, each with parameters and purpose. It front-loads the domain and call shape. While it is somewhat long, every sentence serves a purpose—detailing ops, defaults, and the call convention—without 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?

The description covers all four operations, parameter syntax, and the call shape (including flat-parameter alias). It does not explain return values or error handling, but an output schema exists, which likely covers return structure. Missing details like prerequisites (e.g., need for an open scene) are not mentioned, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides exhaustive parameter details for each op, including names, defaults, and allowed joint types (pin, hinge, slider, etc.). This goes far beyond the generic input schema, which only defines op, params, and session_id with 0% coverage of inner parameters. The description fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 explicitly states 'Physics Joints Management (2D and 3D)' and enumerates four concrete operations (scaffold_joint_2d, scaffold_joint_3d, configure_joint, get_joint_info), each with a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like physics_manage or body_manage, which manage other aspects of physics.

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 implies usage by listing joint-specific operations, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like physics_manage or node_manage. It lacks any 'when not to use' or cross-referencing to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the domain from the title and operation names.

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