add_rigid_body

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the basic operation. It doesn't mention whether the tool modifies an existing object, requires a selection, replaces existing physics, or has side effects. It also doesn't explain what ACTIVE versus PASSIVE means in terms of behavior. The agent is left guessing about the tool's impact.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and avoids filler. One sentence is efficient, but it's under-specified for the complexity of the operation. Still, given its length, it earns points for clarity and brevity.

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 tool has three parameters, an output schema, and relates to a complex physics system. The description only mentions the type parameter and does not cover mass, prerequisites, or how the tool interacts with existing rigid body setups. The output schema exists but is not described, so the agent lacks critical context about return values or side effects. The description is inadequate for a physics operation.

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, but it only explains the 'type' parameter (ACTIVE or PASSIVE). It doesn't explain 'mass' or 'object_name', though object_name is self-explanatory from the name. The description adds minimal value for the other parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meaning.

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 clear verb ('Add') and resource ('rigid body physics'), and includes the key type distinction (ACTIVE or PASSIVE). This clearly differentiates it from sibling physics tools like add_cloth and add_soft_body, so an agent can identify the correct tool without opening the schema.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and purpose imply it's for rigid body physics, it doesn't state conditions like 'use for rigid body simulations only' or mention that cloth/soft body have separate tools. An agent unfamiliar with the domain may not know when to choose this over add_cloth, add_soft_body, or add_collision.

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