physics

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

Annotations indicate the tool is mutable but not destructive. The description adds no behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., modifying project files), prerequisites, or what each action entails. The list of actions hints at capabilities but doesn't explain behaviors.

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 extremely short but under-specifies critical information. The structure front-loads a vague phrase, and the reference to the help tool undermines completeness. Conciseness here sacrifices usefulness.

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 10 parameters, multiple actions, and no output schema, the description is grossly insufficient. It provides no information on how actions relate to parameters, expected results, or usage patterns, leaving the agent without needed context.

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 100% with parameter descriptions, so the burden on the description is lower. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides clarity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Physics config' is vague and fails to specify what the tool actually does. Listing actions like 'layers|collision_setup|body_config|set_layer_name' without a verb or context does not clearly convey the tool's purpose. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'config' or 'nodes'.

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. The note 'Use help tool for full docs' defers responsibility, offering no direction on appropriate contexts for this tool.

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