setup_physics_body

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful behaviors: angles are in degrees and only provided parameters are written, which implies partial updates. However, it omits important details such as error handling for non-physics-body nodes, body-type-specific parameter compatibility, or whether changes affect a running scene.

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 front-loads the core purpose, then uses a semicolon to add two key behavioral notes. Every word adds information, with no filler or repetition.

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 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only a bare overview. It does not explain parameter semantics, prerequisites, or per-node-type applicability, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly on diverse physics body types.

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 for parameter meanings. It only notes that angles are in degrees and parameters are individually writable, but does not explain any of the 17 parameters. Many property names are self-explanatory, but enums like freeze_mode, motion_mode, and continuous_cd remain unexplained.

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 tool configures simulation properties of existing CharacterBody2D/3D or RigidBody2D/3D nodes, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like setup_collision or set_physics_layers by focusing on simulation-specific 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 description gives clear context: it applies to existing physics bodies, implying it is not for creation or collision setup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the scope is reasonably bounded and understood within the sibling tool set.

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