remove_physics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what 'remove physics' entails: whether it removes all physics types, affects baked simulations, or is irreversible. The single sentence provides no side effects or behavioral nuances beyond the literal action.

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, clear sentence that is easy to scan and front-loaded. It is concise, though it may be under-specified. It earns its place but could benefit from more structure or elaboration without becoming verbose.

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 the tool has 2 required parameters, no annotations, and only a minimal description, the context is incomplete. There is no information on return values (despite an output schema existing), error cases, or how 'type' interacts with the removal. The description is too sparse for a tool with this level of complexity.

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 does not explain either parameter ('object' and 'type'). It does not clarify what 'type' refers to (e.g., rigid body, cloth) or what format 'object' should be in. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare property 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 a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('physics from an object'), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_physics' and 'set_physics_property' by indicating a removal operation.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'set_physics_property' or 'free_physics_bake'. There are no exclusions or context about prerequisites (e.g., does the object need physics already?). The description merely states the action without usage context.

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