production.physics_analyze_stability

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, non-open-world mutation, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the body and face are preserved and that execution is gated behind apply plus QA/review gates, which is genuine context beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing what 'stability' analysis actually checks or what state changes occur on apply.

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?

Only three short sentences and the key scoping constraint appears early, which is good. However, the final sentence is telegraphic jargon ('fixed physics plan and explicit QA/review gates') that reads as a compressed shard of internal process rather than a self-contained instruction.

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?

With six optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no required arguments, an agent cannot tell what a call with no arguments does or what brief/options/physics accept. The output schema covers return values, but the description never explains what a 'secondary candidate' is or what the inspection produces, leaving a substantial gap for a tool with this much surface area.

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 full explanatory burden and does not. It mentions only the apply flag's default; brief, intent, options, physics, and object_name are left completely undefined, including the expected shape of the free-form objects.

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 core verb phrase is 'Inspect, propose, or execute physics_analyze_stability', which simply restates the tool name rather than describing a distinct operation. The qualifiers 'on isolated secondary candidates' and 'Body/face preserved' add real scope, but nothing distinguishes this from the many sibling physics_analyze_* tools (cloth, hair, accessory, motion, penetration, soft_region).

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 an inspect/propose mode versus an execute mode, which is weakly useful routing information, but it largely repeats the schema default. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over physics_analyze_cloth or physics_analyze_hair, and 'explicit QA/review gates' is never defined.

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