add_standard_gravity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet only notes the default direction (-Y) and the unit-vector semantics. It says nothing about whether gravity is additive, requires an existing analysis, permissions, or what happens on repeat calls. The default direction is also already visible in the 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the argument list. The 'Args:' enumeration is slightly redundant against the schema but keeps it readable and wastes little space.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the unit-vector note is helpful. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations and four undocumented parameters, the description is thin on behavioral and parameter context.

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, and it partially does by listing the four args and clarifying that x/y/z form a unit direction vector. However, analysis_index is left entirely unexplained, so the compensation is incomplete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add Standard Earth Gravity', which is clearly distinct from sibling load tools like add_force or add_moment. It is clear and unambiguous, though it never explicitly contrasts itself against those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g. an existing analysis), or when not to use it. The only implied usage comes from the name itself, and no routing guidance is offered.

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