set_physics_property

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

The annotation idempotentHint=true is present, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds little beyond the annotated idempotency—no mention of error conditions, scope of properties, or simulation impact. Given the annotation coverage, the description is minimally sufficient.

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 one sentence with an illustrative example, front-loaded and free of filler. Every word adds value.

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 an output schema (content unknown) and the description provides a clear, concise example. It is reasonably complete for a simple setter, though it could mention that valid properties depend on the physics type or that object must already have physics enabled. Overall, adequate for the 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The example maps type, property, and value to concrete values (RIGID_BODY, mass, 5.0), which gives some semantic meaning. However, it does not explain valid ranges of property names or type variations, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 action ('Set a physics property') and resource (physics property), with an example that reinforces the purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like add_physics or setup_rigid_body_world, which create/setup physics, while this tool modifies existing properties.

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 example implies usage ('type=RIGID_BODY, property=mass, value=5.0') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like setup_rigid_body_world or set_material_property. No exclusionary guidance is provided, so it is adequate but not explicit.

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