physics_add_cloth

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the action but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the simulation auto-starts, if object must be mesh, or if modifications are reversible. It provides basic parameter descriptions but lacks 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 concise: one sentence plus a parameter list. Front-loaded with the purpose, no extraneous text. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity of cloth simulation and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the tool returns, what happens after addition (e.g., need to bake?), or prerequisites (e.g., topology requirements). For 6 parameters, more context is needed.

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. The 'Args' section adds minimal meaning (e.g., quality range '1-80', 'Enable self-collision detection') but does not explain parameter interactions or units (e.g., mass units). Adequate but not rich.

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 the action: 'Add cloth physics simulation to a mesh.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like physics_add_rigid_body or physics_add_soft_body, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like physics_add_soft_body or physics_add_rigid_body. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or exclusion criteria.

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