production.physics_prepare_colliders

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

Beyond the annotations (which already say destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds genuinely useful behavior: a safe dry-run default via apply=false, a preservation guarantee ('Body/face preserved'), and gated QA/review execution. It still doesn't say what is modified or whether execution is reversible, so it falls short of full disclosure.

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 compact fragments with no filler, and the mode/safety information is front-loaded. It is telegraphic to the point of obscurity, but nothing is wasted.

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. For a 7-parameter physics tool with zero schema documentation, the description covers the core mode and gating but leaves the bulk of the argument surface untouched.

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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies one parameter ('apply defaults false'); brief, intent, options, physics, object_name, and operation_id are left entirely unexplained 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 gives a three-mode verb set (inspect/propose/execute) and a target (isolated secondary candidates), which is more than a tautology. However, it is partly self-referential ('execute physics_prepare_colliders') and never says what a 'collider' preparation actually produces or how it differs from siblings like physics_setup_cloth or physics_generate_secondary_bones.

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 the tool defaults to a non-mutating inspection/proposal pass, and 'explicit QA/review gates' hints at a review requirement. But there is no statement of when to choose this over sibling physics tools, nor what conditions must hold before calling it. Usage is only implied.

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