Create a water drop effect by dropping a blob of water onto a target object, with adjustable radius, velocity, and drop height for physics simulation.
Drop a blob of water on something (shortcut for water(mode="drop")). 물 덩어리를 위에서 떨어뜨린다. water 의 간단 버전. 더 세밀한 제어는 water 를 쓴다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | No | ||
| frames | No | ||
| radius | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| velocity | No | ||
| resolution | No | ||
| drop_height | No | ||
| preview_frames | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool drops a water blob and is equivalent to water's drop mode, but it does not explain side effects, whether the action mutates the scene, whether physics simulation is involved, or what happens to the target. This is a minimal action statement without behavioral depth.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the relationship to water. The bilingual repetition adds some redundancy but is not bloated; it remains an efficient, readable definition.
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?
With 8 optional parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. It identifies the tool's role but fails to provide enough context about parameter behavior, prerequisites, or outcomes.
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% and none of the 8 parameters are explained. The description only references water(mode='drop') and does not clarify 'at', 'frames', 'radius', 'target', 'velocity', 'resolution', 'drop_height', or 'preview_frames'. The description does not compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter documentation.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Drop a blob of water on something.' It also clearly differentiates from the sibling tool 'water' by calling itself a shortcut for water(mode='drop'), so an agent can tell them apart immediately.
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 this is a shortcut for water(mode='drop') and that 'water' should be used for more detailed control ('더 세밀한 제어는 water 를 쓴다'). This gives clear routing guidance between the two sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.