simulation.rigid_body

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3', which is vague and does not explain what the tool does to the scene, whether it modifies object state, whether it requires a transaction, or what side effects occur. No contradiction with annotations, but no meaningful behavioral context added.

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 short and front-loaded with the command name, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The sentence 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' is generic metadata that could apply to any tool. The second sentence about argument checks and session policy is boilerplate. No useful information is packed into the 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?

Given 9 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema details, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, what parameters are essential, or what the expected outcome is. The presence of an output schema is noted but the description does not reference it. The tool is one of many simulation siblings, and the description does not help an agent select or invoke it correctly.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. The schema has 9 parameters, including bodyType (ACTIVE/PASSIVE), mass, collisionShape, objectId, and several harness fields. The description does not explain what bodyType means, how mass is used, what collisionShape values are valid, or which object the rigid body is applied to. The description fails to compensate for the low schema 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 only states the command name and generic risk/maturity metadata. It does not state what the tool does (e.g., add rigid body physics to an object, set body type/mass/collision shape). The title 'simulation.rigid_body' is a command path, not a verb+resource explanation. It fails to distinguish from sibling simulation tools like blender_simulation_soft_body or blender_simulation_cloth.

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. The description mentions 'Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply' but that is generic harness boilerplate, not usage context. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., object must exist, scene must be active) or when rigid body simulation is appropriate.

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