add_box

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain the key behavior—cloth collision—and the replace_avatar side effect, but it does not mention persistence, return behavior, or whether adding a box has any other scene-level consequences.

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 well-structured. The main behavior is front-loaded, and the Args section is compact with every line adding useful information.

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?

For a simple additive tool with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the required invocation details. It could be more complete by stating what happens after adding the box (e.g., whether it returns an ID and whether multiple boxes are allowed), but the core calling context is present.

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%, but the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: center coordinates in mm, size dimensions in mm, and replace_avatar's boolean effect. The array shapes are clearly specified, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a box that cloth collides with.' The examples (table, shelf, bed, window sill) clarify its intended purpose, and the box-vs-rod distinction separates it from sibling tools like add_rod.

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 for when this tool is appropriate by listing example box-like furniture objects. It does not explicitly contrast with add_rod or import_collision_object, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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