production.physics_bake_cache

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context: apply defaults to false, the physics plan is fixed, body/face are preserved, and QA/review gates exist. It still omits what gets changed when apply=true, what the QA/review gates require, and whether execution is reversible.

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-loaded, with no wasted sentences. Its telegraphic phrasing ('Body/face preserved. apply defaults false; fixed physics plan...') is efficient but occasionally cryptic rather than fully structured.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. Output schema helps with return values and annotations cover basic safety, but the input parameters, execution modes, and review-gate behavior are not explained enough for an agent to invoke this correctly in a complex physics pipeline.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only clarifies apply's default and vaguely references a fixed physics plan. Six other parameters (brief, intent, options, physics, object_name, operation_id) remain unexplained, leaving an agent with little semantic guidance beyond the schema's raw names.

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 states a specific verb set (inspect, propose, execute) and resource (physics_bake_cache) scoped to isolated secondary candidates, with body/face preservation clarified. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic bake tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with close siblings such as physics_cache_plan or physics_bake_secondary_motion.

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 implies safe usage through 'apply defaults false' and mentions fixed physics plan and explicit QA/review gates, which gives workflow context. However, it does not say when to choose this over physics_cache_plan, physics_bake_secondary_motion, or physics_review, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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