production.physics_compatibility_report

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful constraints that apply defaults to false and that body/face are preserved. It still does not say what 'execute' mutates, what the 'fixed physics plan' means, or what the QA/review gates require, leaving the mutation path opaque.

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 definition is three short sentences with scope front-loaded and no filler. The semicolon-packed final clause is terse and somewhat obscure, but it still carries apply-default and gating information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input surface is large at six parameters and remains undocumented beyond 'apply'. For a mutation-capable tool with many sibling reports, the definition leaves too much about inputs and execution semantics unspecified.

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 optional parameters, and the description only covers 'apply' ('defaults false'). It says nothing about brief, intent, options, physics, or object_name, so an agent cannot infer what these inputs accept or how they alter the report.

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 resource ('physics_compatibility_report') and a scope ('isolated secondary candidates'), but the verbs 'Inspect, propose, or execute' mostly restate the tool name. It does not explain what the report evaluates or how it differs from sibling compatibility reports beyond the 'secondary' qualifier.

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?

The modes 'Inspect, propose, or execute' plus 'apply defaults false' imply a dry-run default and an opt-in execution path, and 'explicit QA/review gates' hints at review requirements. However, it never states when to choose this over siblings such as physics_review, physics_status, or other compatibility_report tools, leaving selection to inference.

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