set_physics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It gives concrete semantics: gravity 9.81 is Earth, 1.62 is Moon, 0 is weightlessness; increasing substeps/solver_iterations improves accuracy but slows simulation; changing settings rebakes the simulation. This discloses useful non-obvious side effects beyond the raw schema.

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 structure is front-loaded with an English one-line summary followed by compact per-parameter explanations. Each sentence adds meaning, though the Korean-only detail section may reduce accessibility for non-Korean agents.

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 most parameter semantics and the important rebake side effect, but it leaves fps unexplained and does not clarify sentinel defaults like -1 or 0. Given seven optional parameters and no annotations, this is adequate but not fully 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. It explains gravity, gravity_deg, substeps, solver_iterations, and speed with practical values and tradeoffs. However, it omits the fps and rebake parameters entirely, leaving two of seven parameters without semantic guidance.

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 'Global physics: gravity strength and tilt, simulation accuracy, playback speed,' which clearly identifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes set_physics from physics-effect siblings like water, fire, and smoke by labeling it as a global settings tool, though it lacks an explicit verb.

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 the configurable physics domains and warning that changes trigger a simulation rebake. However, it does not state when to prefer set_physics over related tools, and there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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