production.physics_classify_secondary

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

Annotations already establish non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds useful execution context: apply defaults to false, body/face are preserved, and execution follows a fixed physics plan with explicit QA/review gates. It does not contradict 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?

Two short sentences front-load the modes and constraints with no extraneous prose. There is minor redundancy in restating the tool name, but the structure is efficient.

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?

The output schema and annotations reduce the burden, but with six undocumented parameters and no alternative routing, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. It covers execution guardrails but not the meaning of most parameters.

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. The description only mentions apply's default, which is already in the schema, and vaguely alludes to a fixed physics plan; it leaves brief, intent, options, physics, and object_name unexplained.

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 the operation modes and target ("inspect, propose, or execute ... on isolated secondary candidates") plus the body/face preservation constraint. It is clear enough but largely restates the tool name rather than defining what "classify" means, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling physics tools.

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 provides implied usage context via isolated secondary candidates, apply default false, and QA/review gates. However, it never says when to choose this over siblings like physics_analyze_* or physics_create_candidate, nor when not to use it.

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