production.physics_analyze_penetration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful context that body/face are preserved, apply defaults to false, and QA/review gates exist, but it does not explain what execution actually changes or how the fixed physics plan constrains behavior.

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 core action, with no obvious filler. The semicolon-heavy phrasing is slightly terse, but each clause contributes scope or safety context.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover some safety behavior, the tool has six undocumented input parameters and mutation capability via apply. The description is too thin to fully guide an agent through parameter usage or mode selection.

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 optional parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only repeats that apply defaults to false, which is already in the schema, and vaguely references a fixed physics plan; it does not clarify brief, intent, options, physics, or object_name.

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 identifies a specific analysis operation, penetration analysis, on isolated secondary candidates, and notes that body/face are preserved. It distinguishes the task from sibling physics analyses by naming the penetration focus, though it does not explain what penetration means in this context.

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 mentions inspect, propose, or execute modes and says apply defaults to false, but it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as physics_analyze_stability or physics_collision_report. There are no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow conditions.

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