add_action

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that actions are added, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing actions, validation rules, side effects, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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?

Description is a single, concise sentence: 'Add a transform, impulse, force, or fluid emission action.' It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the complex input schema with a discriminated union and multiple DTOs, the description is too brief. It does not explain that 'spec' requires a 'kind' discriminator, nor does it provide context for constructing the action objects. The presence of an output schema is irrelevant as the description does not leverage it.

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%. The description adds value by enumerating the possible action types (transform, impulse, force, fluid emission) for the 'spec' parameter, but 'scene_name' remains unexplained. This provides some meaning beyond the schema but not fully compensating for the low coverage.

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 the tool adds an action, listing specific types: transform, impulse, force, or fluid emission. Verb 'add' and resource 'action' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_action' or 'add_constraint'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'update_action' for modifying existing actions. Usage is implied by the name and description, but no direct comparison or conditions provided.

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