add_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Add' without disclosing whether the operation is destructive, if IDs must be unique, or any permissions or side effects. The schema details are not reflected in the description.

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 short sentence which is concise but lacks structure. It could be more informative without becoming verbose. Every word earns its place but the brevity sacrifices critical information.

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 tool's complexity (multiple object types with many parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't indicate what the tool returns, how to handle errors, or the requirement for a kind discriminator in the spec.

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% (assuming accurate), so the description must compensate. It fails to explain the spec parameter (e.g., discriminator by kind, required id) or scene_name. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema's structural definitions.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource types ('rigid body, cloth, smoke/liquid fluid, or compound container'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_action or add_constraint by specifying physics objects.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_object or create_scene. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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