blender_physics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects like object modification, scene changes, or dependencies. The description only states what the tool does, not how it behaves.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a bulleted list for operations, making it scannable. Every sentence is functional, with no unnecessary words.

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 that the tool has 10 parameters and no required fields, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose but does not cover when specific operations should be used or how they interact. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks depth.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by listing operations but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what is in the schema. Thus, baseline score 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 clearly states 'Enable and configure physics simulations for objects.' It lists specific operations (e.g., enable_rigid_body, enable_cloth), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like blender_rigging or blender_animation.

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 lists supported operations, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it include when-not-to-use guidance. The context is implied but not directive.

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