setup_rbd_sim

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the whole network (fracture + solver) is built in a single call, but says nothing about side effects on the current scene, whether existing nodes are reused or overwritten, idempotency, or failure modes for a mutating builder tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the alternative guidance, then the args block – no filler sentences. The Args list is slightly redundant with the schema property names but the added descriptions justify the space.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the definition should say more about what the tool actually creates and returns. It covers purpose, routing, and parameter meaning well, but leaves an agent guessing about scene side effects and the resulting node structure.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it names all four args. It even supplies enum-like value guidance ('voronoi') for pieces_type, which the schema's plain string type does not, though the per-arg notes are terse and lean on restating names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Build an RBD rigid-body simulation network with fracture and solver'), and the 'RBD' qualifier cleanly separates it from the sibling setup_pyro_sim / setup_flip_sim / setup_vellum_sim tools without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear context ('Preferred over manual DOP wiring — builds the entire RBD network in one call') and steers a sub-task away from a worse alternative ('build SOP chains with native nodes ... instead of VEX'). It lacks an explicit when-NOT-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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