production.physics_analyze_cloth

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so the description’s added context is useful: it says body/face are preserved, apply defaults to false, and there are fixed physics plans plus explicit QA/review gates. These details add behavioral insight beyond the structured annotations, though they remain somewhat terse.

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 short and front-loads the main action and scope. It is somewhat fragmented, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a six-parameter tool with no schema descriptions the definition is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics and alternative-tool guidance, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it confidently.

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% across six parameters, and the description only mentions that “apply” defaults to false, which is already in the schema. It does not explain the roles of brief, intent, options, physics, or object_name, leaving most parameter meaning undocumented.

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 (cloth physics) and a scope (“isolated secondary candidates”), but the verb phrase “Inspect, propose, or execute physics_analyze_cloth” largely restates the tool name rather than specifying what analysis is performed. It does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as physics_simulate_cloth or physics_analyze_stability.

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?

It gives a situational hint (“on isolated secondary candidates”) but never states when to choose this over alternatives like physics_simulate_cloth, physics_setup_cloth, or physics_analyze_stability. There are no explicit when/when-not rules or routing guidance.

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