game_add_collision

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

With no annotations, description must disclose behavior. It does not mention whether it creates a child CollisionShape node, overwrites existing shapes, or requires specific node types. Critical behavioral traits like side effects or error conditions are absent.

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?

Single sentence is concise but too terse; lacks structure. Could be improved with a second sentence clarifying context.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the description fails to explain return values, behavior on failure, or node hierarchy requirements. Complex tool with 6 parameters and nested objects demands more context.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema fields (shapeType, shapeParams, etc.). Could explain relationships (e.g., shapeParams depends on shapeType) but does not.

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?

Description clearly states 'Add a collision shape to a physics body node', specifying verb ('add'), resource ('collision shape'), and target ('physics body node'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like game_physics_body (manages body) and game_shape_2d (creates shape resource), but could be more explicit about 2D/3D context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like game_physics_2d or how to prepare the parent node. Missing prerequisites or exclusions for different physics body types.

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