production.physics_refine

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful behavioral context with 'Body/face preserved' and 'explicit QA/review gates', but it does not explain what refinement actually changes, what the gates verify, or how non-idempotency manifests.

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 short and front-loads the core operation. Some fragments, especially 'fixed physics plan and explicit QA/review gates,' are cryptic, but there is no wasted repetition.

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 description is too thin to make the tool safely callable. Although an output schema exists, the description still needs more coverage of mode selection, parameter intent, and the QA/review gate behavior.

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 coverage is 0% across seven optional parameters, so the description must carry the meaning of fields like brief, intent, options, physics, object_name, and operation_id. It only echoes the apply default and vaguely references a 'fixed physics plan', leaving the remaining parameters 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 states that the tool operates on 'isolated secondary candidates' and can inspect, propose, or execute physics refinement, which gives some concrete scope. However, 'physics_refine' is essentially restated rather than defined, and the description does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like physics_plan, physics_review, or physics_accept.

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?

Mentioning inspect/propose/execute modes and 'apply defaults false' implies a preview-versus-execution usage pattern. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no stated prerequisites for entering the execute path.

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