add_collision_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the collision trigger and does not explain side effects, persistence, scope, or interaction with the world state. The presence of undeclared parameters like target_actor_id and args further underscores the lack of behavioral transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the core function. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse. However, it is under-specified, which detracts slightly from its structural completeness, though this is partially captured in other dimensions.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not shown. The description only covers the fundamental collision trigger, leaving parameter semantics, behavioral details, and expected outcomes ambiguous. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool, even if return values are covered by the unseen output schema.

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%, and the description fails to compensate. While moving_actor_id, collider_actor_id, and effect are somewhat self-explanatory, the meaning of target_actor_id (with a large default value) and args is completely unspecified. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Apply an effect when one actor collides with another actor or static map.' This uses a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('effect'), and the collision trigger clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_click_effect and add_timer_effect.

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 implies usage context (collision events) but does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools exist for other trigger types, but no direct comparison or guidance is provided, leaving usage to inference.

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