production.physics_generate_accessory_motion

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'apply defaults false' clarifies the default is non-mutating, 'Body/face preserved' gives a preservation guarantee, and 'explicit QA/review gates' suggests a gated workflow. However, it does not explain what happens during inspect vs propose vs execute, what state is created, or how failures are handled.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the action. It is efficient with no wasted words. The semicolon-separated clause 'apply defaults false; fixed physics plan and explicit QA/review gates' is slightly fragmented but still concise.

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. However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with 0% parameter descriptions and non-idempotent behavior, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'accessory motion' generates, how the inspect/propose/execute modes differ, or what the QA/review gates enforce, leaving large gaps for correct invocation.

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% and there are 7 parameters with no per-parameter descriptions. The description only clarifies that 'apply' defaults to false; it says nothing about brief, intent, options, physics, object_name, or operation_id. With near-zero schema coverage, the description should compensate but instead provides almost no parameter meaning.

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 tool can 'Inspect, propose, or execute physics_generate_accessory_motion on isolated secondary candidates,' which gives a verb and resource. However, it largely restates the tool name and does not explain what 'accessory motion' means or distinguish it from siblings like physics_generate_secondary_bones or physics_generate_hair_secondary. The scope 'isolated secondary candidates' and 'Body/face preserved' add some specificity, but the core purpose remains vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as physics_generate_hair_secondary, physics_generate_secondary_bones, or physics_generate_soft_secondary. The modes 'inspect, propose, or execute' are mentioned but not explained in terms of when each applies or what alternatives exist. The only usage hint is 'apply defaults false,' which is not a selection guideline.

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