production.physics_plan_hair

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds real context beyond that: body/face are preserved (a material safety claim for a physics mutation) and QA/review gates are enforced. It does not say what changes when apply=true, whether it can be undone, or what the gates check.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The final sentence is a telegraphic fragment ('fixed physics plan and explicit QA/review gates') that is terse to the point of ambiguity, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves an agent unable to construct a meaningful call beyond apply=true/false. The output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input side is badly under-specified.

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 seven parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. Only 'apply' is addressed (and its false default merely repeats the schema default); brief, intent, options, physics, object_name, and operation_id are entirely 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 three modes (inspect, propose, execute) and a scope (isolated secondary candidates, body/face preserved), which tells an agent this is hair physics planning rather than general physics planning. However, the core resource is restated verbatim as 'physics_plan_hair' instead of being described, and no sibling (e.g. physics_plan, physics_analyze_hair) is named. The intent is inferable but not stated crisply.

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?

'apply defaults false' implies an inspect-first workflow and the mention of explicit QA/review gates hints at a staged workflow, but neither says when to pick this over physics_plan or physics_analyze_hair. The when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit, with no exclusions.

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