game_physics_body

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'configure' without explaining side effects, whether the change applies to the live scene or saved file, whether existing values are overwritten, or whether setting freeze/sleeping interacts with other properties. A one-sentence summary is not enough for an 11-parameter mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat under-specified for the tool's complexity, and while concise, it lacks the front-loaded scoping detail that would make the conciseness fully effective.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of physics-related siblings, this description is too minimal. It does not explain the node requirement beyond the schema, the behavior expected after configuration, or how this tool relates to the broader physics toolset.

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?

The input schema already documents all 11 parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'mass, velocity, etc.' as generic examples and does not clarify parameter relationships, defaults, or units beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear verb ('configure') and a specific resource ('physics body properties'), with examples of the property types (mass, velocity). It distinguishes itself from scene manipulation and input tools, though it does not explicitly clarify whether this targets 2D, 3D, or both physics body kinds relative to siblings like game_physics_2d and game_physics_3d.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_physics_2d, game_physics_3d, game_add_collision, or game_create_joint. The phrase 'Configure physics body properties' implies a narrow purpose but never states prerequisites, exclusions, or how it differs from the many related physics tools in the sibling list.

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