production.physics_compare_before_after

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only, not idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful mutation gating context: apply defaults false, a fixed physics plan, explicit QA/review gates, and body/face preservation. However, it does not clarify the side effects of execute mode, authorization requirements, or idempotency 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?

It is short and front-loads the modes, but the telegraphic phrasing ('Body/face preserved', 'fixed physics plan and explicit QA/review gates') and repeated operation name reduce clarity. It is concise but not well structured for an agent to parse.

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 seven-parameter tool with a mutation mode and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits parameter roles, input shapes, and operation_id usage; the output schema covers return values, but inputs need explanation.

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?

With seven parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only documents that apply defaults to false. The roles of brief, intent, options, physics, object_name, and operation_id remain completely opaque.

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 names the operation and scope ('isolated secondary candidates', 'Body/face preserved'), but it largely restates the tool name rather than explaining what is compared before and after. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling review/compare tools such as physics_review or qa_compare_before_after.

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 the modes 'inspect, propose, or execute' and notes that apply defaults to false with QA/review gates, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives or prerequisites for each mode. The usage guidance is implied rather than actionable.

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