production.physics_plan

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

Annotations already declare the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful context: the default apply=false, that body/face are preserved, and that there are fixed physics plans and explicit QA/review gates. However, it does not clarify what execute versus propose actually does to 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 two compact sentences with no wasted wording and key safety defaults front-loaded. Jargon like 'physics_plan' reduces clarity but does not waste space.

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 tool with seven parameters, no schema descriptions, and no verbose annotations, the description is too sparse. It covers only one parameter and omits critical operational context such as what the plan produces, how execute mode behaves, and how the QA/review gates must be handled.

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% with seven parameters, and the description only clarifies that 'apply' defaults to false. The other six parameters (brief, intent, options, physics, object_name, operation_id) remain entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 multiple modes ('inspect, propose, or execute') on 'physics_plan' for 'isolated secondary candidates', but 'physics_plan' is not clearly defined and the mixed verbs make the exact purpose vague. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like physics_create_brief or physics_refine.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling physics planning/analysis tools. The only usage-relevant detail is 'apply defaults false', but there are no exclusions or alternative selection criteria.

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