add_force_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a force field' without mentioning side effects, required scene state, or what kind of object is created. There is no mention of how the force field integrates into the scene or any other behavioral traits.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but brevity here is not conciseness—it's under-specification. The sentence is structurally unclear ('force field empty' reads as a fragment) and fails to organize information logically. It could be improved by clearly stating the resource and parameters, but as is, it lacks structure.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and a large sibling set, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, when to use it, or how parameters work. Even with an output schema present, the description fails to provide any guidance for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 for the lack of parameter explanations. However, it only lists possible type values (FORCE, WIND, VORTEX, MAGNET) without explaining what 'type' means or what the other parameters (name, location, strength) do. This is far from adequate for the four parameters.

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 'Create a force field empty' which is awkward and unclear—'empty' is ambiguous (possibly meaning an empty object, but it's not explained). It does name a concrete resource ('force field') and a verb ('Create'), but it lacks specificity about what a force field is or does, making it hard to distinguish from other creation tools like create_camera or create_light without further context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, any prerequisites, or alternatives. The description provides zero context about the intended scenario, and with over 250 sibling tools, an agent cannot infer when this is the right choice.

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