setup_collision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavior: it creates and attaches a child collision shape node with a built shape resource, and notes the important unit difference (2D in pixels, 3D in metres). It doesn't mention effects like replacing existing shapes, but the core operation is clear.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds relevant information about the action, target, and units.

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 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It covers purpose and units but omits parameter semantics and usage caveats, making it incomplete for such a complex tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only adds unit context for sizes. It does not explain parameters such as points, ax/ay/bx/by, one_way_collision, depth, or the shape enum, leaving many of the 15 parameters without meaningful semantic guidance.

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 states a specific action ('Add'), a specific resource ('CollisionShape2D/3D child holding a built shape resource'), and a target ('to a physics body or Area'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup_physics_body or add_node.

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 conveys clear context: use this tool when adding a collision shape to a physics body or Area. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the target and purpose are unambiguous.

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