set_physics_layers

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates collision_layer and collision_mask, supports bitmask integers or lists of layer numbers 1-32, and targets collision objects/areas/raycasts. However, it does not state whether properties are overwritten or merged, validation behavior for invalid inputs, or side effects on existing physics setup.

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, tightly packed sentence that conveys the action, the affected properties, target node types, and accepted input formats. No wasted words; front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

For a simple setter with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it identifies the target nodes, the properties to set, and the accepted value formats. It lacks only minor details like return value (likely none) or error conditions, but these are not critical given the low 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?

The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains collision_layer and collision_mask as bitmask ints or lists of layer numbers 1-32, which is meaningful beyond the schema's generic anyOf integer/array. It also indicates optionality via 'and/or', though node_path is not explicitly described (implied as the target node).

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 uses a specific verb 'Set' and clearly identifies the resources being modified: collision_layer and/or collision_mask on a collision object, area, or raycast. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_physics_layers or setup_collision by naming the exact properties and target node types.

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 implies the tool is for setting collision layer/mask properties on specific node types, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools like setup_collision, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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