add_rigid_body

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

Discloses that ACTIVE is affected by gravity and PASSIVE is a static collider, and notes that MESH collision shape is exact but slow. This adds behavioral context beyond the input 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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then expand on key parameters. No unnecessary words.

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 type and collision_shape but omits details on mass, friction, restitution, and does not mention any return value or outcome. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.

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?

Adds meaning for 'type' and 'collision_shape' by listing valid values and their behavior, but does not explain 'mass', 'friction', 'restitution', or 'name'. With 0% schema coverage, more could be done.

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 clearly states 'Add rigid body physics to an object' and provides details about types and collision shapes. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'physics_add_rigid_body'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cloth or soft body physics. The description explains types and collision shapes but lacks context about prerequisites or when not to use.

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