blender_physics

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

Annotations provide no positive hints (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false, etc.), leaving the description to carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description lists operations like 'bake_physics' and 'add_force_field' but does not explain side effects, such as overwriting existing physics settings, modifying keyframes, or potentially non-reversible actions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise, structured bullet list. The opening sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear enumeration of operations. No wasted words; every line earns its place. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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's complexity (10 parameters, 7 distinct operations) and no positive annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It does not explain which parameters apply to which operations, whether operations are mutually exclusive, or any dependencies (e.g., object must exist). An output schema exists but is not shown; the description could still benefit from usage scenarios or operation-specific parameter notes.

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% for all 10 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond schema by listing valid values for the 'operation' parameter (enable_rigid_body, enable_cloth, etc.) and implicitly maps operations to physics types. This adds meaningful context that the schema's generic 'Physics operation type' lacks, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 clear purpose: 'Enable and configure physics simulations for objects.' It then enumerates specific operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like blender_particles or blender_modifiers. The verb 'enable/configure' plus resource 'physics simulations' is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage for physics-related tasks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It lists operations but without context like 'use enable_rigid_body for rigid body dynamics' or 'bake for animation export.' This is implied guidance at best.

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