godot_generate_ragdoll

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral detail—such as whether it replaces existing PhysicalBone3D nodes, whether it requires a specific skeleton selection, or what happens to the scene graph. Since annotations provide minimal coverage, the description carries insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff and is efficient for the agent to parse. It earns its place by being both concise and clear.

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 description is too terse for a tool that modifies the scene by creating physical bones. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., that a Skeleton3D must exist), whether existing ragdoll structures are replaced, how the resulting hierarchy behaves, or what the return value entails. While an output schema exists, the description leaves critical context about side effects and usage expectations unaddressed.

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?

The tool description does not mention any parameters, but the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each (bounce, friction, bone_names, shape_type, mass_per_bone, skeleton_node_path). Since the schema itself covers the parameters adequately, the description does not need to compensate. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no additional 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 'Automatically construct PhysicalBone3D hierarchies from Skeleton3D' clearly states the action (construct), the resource (PhysicalBone3D hierarchies), and the source (Skeleton3D). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'godot_configure_physics_joint' or 'godot_setup_inverse_kinematics' by focusing on ragdoll generation.

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 does not mention conditions (e.g., 'use for ragdoll setups' or 'for other joint-based physics use X') or list any alternatives. The purpose implies usage but without explicit direction, an agent must infer when to select this over the many physics-related sibling tools.

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