import_collision_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the destructive/replacement side effect explicitly and explains unit handling and coordinate behavior, including the keep_position false drop-to-ground effect.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, key side effect, units, then an Args block. Every sentence adds necessary information and there is no filler.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers all parameters, the required file format, side effects, and units, so an agent can call it without needing additional clarification.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it fully does. It explains file_path as an absolute path to the .obj file, clarifies what keep_position does in practical terms, and gives meaningful scale guidance with a unit example.

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: importing an OBJ file as an object that cloth collides with. It gives concrete examples (curtain rail, furniture) and clearly distinguishes this from file/avatar imports by explaining the collision-object role.

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 about when to use it: when the user wants to bring in their own OBJ geometry as a collision object. It warns about replacing the current avatar and rods/boxes, which serves as an implicit exclusion, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as add_box, add_rod, or import_file.

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