game_add_collision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the immediate action without explaining whether this mutates the scene tree, whether an existing collision shape is replaced or additional shapes are stacked, whether the change is persistent, or what happens if the parent node is invalid.

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 single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation, and it is appropriately short for a straightforward mutation tool.

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 tool with 6 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain how shapeParams relate to shapeType, whether required parameters are sufficient in all cases, or what the agent should expect after the call.

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 baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and the nested shapeParams object—whose contents likely vary by shapeType—is not elaborated in the tool description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('collision shape to a physics body node'), making the core operation clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like game_physics_body, game_physics_2d, or game_shape_2d, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as modify_scene_node, game_physics_body, or game_physics_2d. There is also no mention of prerequisites, such as the parentPath needing to reference a valid physics body or area node before adding a collision shape.

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