physics_add_rigid_body

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

The description explains parameters (e.g., 'ACTIVE only' for mass) but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or whether it is destructive. With no annotations, the description could better cover behavioral traits like overwriting existing physics.

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 docstring format is well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by Args section. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise by integrating default values from the schema.

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?

For a straightforward physics tool, the description covers all parameters and some constraints. However, it lacks return value info and side effects, which is acceptable given no output schema. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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?

The description adds detailed meaning to each parameter beyond the schema: units (kg), valid ranges (0-1), enums explained (ACTIVE vs PASSIVE), and collision shape types. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 rigid body physics') and the target ('object'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'physics_add_cloth' or 'physics_add_soft_body' by focusing on rigid body physics.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., cloth, soft body). It lists parameters but no context for selection, and there is a confusingly similar sibling 'add_rigid_body' without differentiation.

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