bake_physics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one useful trait ('Long-running operation'), but fails to mention whether existing baked data is overwritten, whether the operation blocks or runs asynchronously, whether it requires a specific object state, or that free_physics_bake exists to undo the process.

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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place: the first states the purpose, the second flags the long-running nature. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized with zero filler or repetition.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), the description omits critical context. The optional nullable 'object' parameter is unexplained, and with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the tool is under-specified for a baking operation that mutates scene data and has a counterpart (free_physics_bake) for cleanup.

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% for the single 'object' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does not: there is no explanation of what 'object' refers to, why it is optional/nullable, or what happens when it is null (e.g., bake all objects vs. selected object). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Bake physics simulation.' This is immediately clear and distinct from most sibling tools. However, it does not differentiate from sibling bake_particles, which performs an analogous operation on particle systems.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., setting up physics with setup_rigid_body_world/setup_cloth_sim), nor does it point to bake_particles or free_physics_bake as related alternatives. 'Long-running operation' is a timing warning, not usage direction.

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