cocos_set_physics_3d_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a write operation ('Writes settings/v2/packages/physics.json'), mentions performance implications, provides default values, and explains unit differences between 3D and 2D systems. It doesn't cover all potential behavioral aspects like error conditions or permission requirements, but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. The first sentence establishes core functionality, subsequent sentences provide important contextual details (defaults, units, file location, performance advice), and every statement adds value. It's appropriately sized for a configuration tool with multiple parameters.

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?

For a 9-parameter configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: it explains the write operation, file location, key parameter semantics, performance considerations, and system differences. While it doesn't cover all parameters or potential edge cases, it gives enough information for an agent to use the tool effectively in most common scenarios.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 9 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining the meaning and usage of three key parameters (gravity components, timestep, max_sub_steps), including default values, units, and performance guidance. It doesn't cover all 9 parameters, but provides substantial semantic context for the most critical ones, significantly adding value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Configure 3D physics') and resources (gravity, timestep, sub-step cap), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'cocos_set_physics_2d_config' by explicitly contrasting 3D vs 2D physics systems. It provides concrete details about what gets configured rather than just restating the tool name.

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 provides clear context about when to adjust certain parameters ('Bump max_sub_steps to 3-4 if physics drops frames after hitches') and distinguishes between 3D and 2D physics systems. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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