production.physics_analyze_accessory

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the default is non-applying (apply=false), the operation is isolated from the body/face, and QA/review gates are enforced — but it never says what apply actually mutates, whether prior state is recoverable, or what the gates require, and 'gates' is left undefined.

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?

Three short sentences with the scoping constraint ('Body/face preserved') and the default behavior front-loaded. It is compact and has little filler, though the opening clause duplicates the tool name rather than adding 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a 6-parameter, 0%-coverage tool the description leaves the agent unable to construct a call beyond toggling apply, and gives no way to distinguish this from the many other physics_analyze_* tools. The structural essentials are missing even making allowances for the output schema.

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?

Six parameters at 0% schema description coverage, with zero enums and all optional, means the schema provides no meaning at all for most inputs. The description only mentions 'apply' (and only to state its default); brief, intent, options, physics, and object_name are completely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the resource (accessory physics analysis on isolated secondary candidates) and adds the scoping constraint 'Body/face preserved', which does distinguish it from body/face/in cloth/hair physics siblings. But 'Inspect, propose, or execute physics_analyze_accessory' largely restates the tool name, and the three stacked verbs make the actual operation ambiguous rather than precise.

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?

'apply defaults false' plus 'fixed physics plan and explicit QA/review gates' implies a staged workflow (dry-run first, then apply) and hints that review checkpoints precede execution. However, no sibling is named as an alternative and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance despite adjacent tools like physics_analyze_cloth, physics_analyze_hair, and physics_generate_accessory_motion existing in the same family.

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