production.physics_analyze_soft_region

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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is partly covered structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond them – body/face are preserved and there are 'explicit QA/review gates' before execution – but 'fixed physics plan' and the gate mechanics remain undefined, and it never says what actually mutates when apply=true.

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?

Two sentences is an appropriate size and the safety scope is front-loaded, but the opening clause ('Inspect, propose, or execute physics_analyze_soft_region') spends words repeating the tool name, and 'fixed physics plan and explicit QA/review gates' is compressed into jargon that conveys little.

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?

This is a conditionally mutating tool with six undocumented parameters and a dense sibling family; an output schema excuses explaining return values, but the description still leaves the core question unanswered – what a soft region is, what each mode does, and what fields control the operation.

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 addresses one ('apply defaults false'); brief, intent, options, physics, and object_name are left entirely undefined in both schema and prose.

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 gives verbs (inspect/propose/execute) and a target ('isolated secondary candidates'), and 'Body/face preserved' bounds the scope. However, it largely restates the tool name ('physics_analyze_soft_region') without ever defining what a 'soft region' is, and it never names a sibling like physics_analyze_cloth or physics_generate_soft_secondary to delineate the boundary.

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?

'Inspect, propose, or execute ... apply defaults false' implies a mode switch: run without apply to inspect/propose, set apply to execute. That is useful implied usage, but no alternative tool is named and no condition for choosing this over the other physics_analyze_* siblings is given.

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