production.physics_create_brief

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

The description says the tool can "execute" physics_create_brief and references apply defaulting to false, implying a mutating execution path when apply is true. This directly conflicts with the annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, creating ambiguity about whether the tool can modify the scene.

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-loads the operational modes, but the fragmentary style leaves key terms underspecified. It avoids verbosity, yet some terseness comes at the cost of clarity rather than earning concision.

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 six-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no required parameters, the description is materially incomplete. It does not explain the modes, parameter meanings, or QA/review gate behavior sufficiently, though the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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% for six parameters, so the description must compensate but does not. It only repeats that apply defaults false (already in the schema) and vaguely references a fixed physics plan, while brief, intent, options, physics, and object_name remain 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 names modes (inspect, propose, execute) and a scope (isolated secondary candidates), which gives some purpose. However, it largely restates the tool name "physics_create_brief" without explaining what a physics brief is, and it does not clearly distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as physics_plan or physics_create_candidate.

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 hints at modes (inspect/propose/execute) and says apply defaults false, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools. There are no when-not conditions or alternatives named, so an agent must infer the correct selection context.

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