production.physics_analyze_motion

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

Annotations already declare idempotent=true and destructive=false, but the description adds real value: it discloses the tri-modal inspect/propose/execute behavior, that apply defaults to false (so nothing is mutated unless opted in), that body and face are preserved, and that QA/review gates are enforced. These are meaningful behavioral facts not present in the annotations.

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 no filler, and the mode/safety information is front-loaded. However, the telegraphic phrasing ('fixed physics plan and explicit QA/review gates') is dense jargon that costs clarity more than it saves space.

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, and the description covers modes and safety. But for a six-parameter, multi-mode physics tool, the absence of any guidance on brief/intent/options/object_name leaves the definition incomplete.

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, so the description must carry the burden. It only clarifies 'apply' (defaults false) and loosely gestures at 'physics' via 'fixed physics plan'; brief, intent, options, and object_name receive no explanation at all.

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 verb phrase 'Inspect, propose, or execute' plus the resource 'physics_analyze_motion on isolated secondary candidates' gives a rough sense of the operation, but it largely restates the tool name and does not distinguish it from siblings like physics_analyze_hair, physics_analyze_cloth, or physics_analyze_stability. An agent cannot tell from this text which analysis scope this covers.

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' hints at a dry-run-first workflow and 'explicit QA/review gates' implies a review step, but there is no statement of when to choose this over the many sibling physics_analyze_* tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred.

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