production.physics_create_candidate

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive mutation, and the description adds meaningful context: work is isolated to secondary candidates, body/face are preserved, and QA/review gates are explicit. This is useful safety and scope information beyond the annotations, though it does not explain failure modes or what exactly gets created.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is short with no filler. The fragmented phrasing and lower-case 'apply defaults false' slightly reduce clarity, but it remains compact.

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 mutation-style candidate creation tool with no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. The existence of an output schema excuses return-value detail, but the description should still clarify the candidate workflow and the roles of the major 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?

Seven parameters have 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains only that apply defaults to false, which is already in the schema. The meanings and interactions of brief, intent, options, physics, object_name, and operation_id remain undocumented.

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 specific actions (inspect, propose, execute) and a concrete resource scope (isolated secondary physics candidates) with preservation behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish this candidate-creation tool from sibling physics plan/setup/generate tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 that the default mode is inspect/propose because apply defaults to false, and that execution requires an explicit apply plus QA/review gates. However, it never names alternatives such as physics_plan, physics_review, or physics_accept, nor states when those should be used instead.

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