production.physics_analyze_hair

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: the default is non-applying, body/face are preserved (i.e., the mutation is scoped to secondary candidates), and QA/review gates are mandated. It stops short of stating the fixed physics plan's contents or what 'apply' actually writes.

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?

It is short and front-loads the action and scope, but the telegraphic phrasing ('fixed physics plan and explicit QA/review gates') reads as internal shorthand rather than a self-contained statement, and multiple clauses are compressed into one dense sentence.

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 need no explanation, but this is a 6-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no documentation of the object_name/brief/options/physics inputs. The description leaves too much for an agent to guess before calling it safely.

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 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only touches 'apply defaults false'; brief, intent, options, physics, and object_name are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, including whether 'physics' selects a plan or a preset.

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 restates the tool name ('physics_analyze_hair') and surrounds it with scope qualifiers ('isolated secondary candidates', 'Body/face preserved'), which hints at hair-specific analysis distinct from the cloth/accessory siblings. However, 'Inspect, propose, or execute' is an ambiguous three-mode framing that doesn't crisply state what the analysis actually measures, and no sibling is named directly.

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' implies a dry-run-first convention, and 'explicit QA/review gates' hints at a gated workflow. But it never says when to choose this over physics_analyze_accessory, physics_analyze_cloth, or physics_plan_hair, nor what preconditions must hold. Usage is largely left to inference.

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