apply_force

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false); the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: simulation-state prerequisites, the three refusal conditions, and the known #58 gap for articulation links. It doesn't disclose whether the push persists across steps or how failure is surfaced in the response, keeping it off a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, ledger-clean: capability first, then state precondition, then refusal cases. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

With an output schema present, full parameter descriptions, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces — preconditions and refusal behavior. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly or recognize when it will be rejected.

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 explains force vs impulse semantics, units, and the position default. The description adds only the conceptual note that mass is respected, with no guidance on choosing impulse=true or interpreting position, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — push a rigid body via PhysX — and adds a scope detail ('so its mass counts') that tells the agent this is a mass-aware dynamics operation, not a transform set. It is clearly distinct from siblings like set_prim_transform or set_physics_properties without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('the simulation must be playing or paused') and explicit exclusion cases (disabled bodies, kinematic bodies, articulation links), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the unsupported articulation-link case, leaving the agent to guess a workaround.

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