production.physics_render_preview

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

Annotations already establish that this is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, and not open-world. The description adds useful workflow context in noting that apply defaults to false and that QA/review gates are explicit, but it does not explain the actual side effects of apply=true or what 'inspect/propose/execute' changes operationally.

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-loaded with the mode/scope, with no padding. However, fragments like 'Body/face preserved' are cryptic and do not clearly earn their place without further explanation.

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?

Given a 7-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and a multi-mode inspect/propose/execute workflow, the description is far too sparse. The output schema may cover return values, but the description does not explain the parameters, the meaning of the modes, or the required workflow gates.

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?

There are 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only mentions 'apply defaults false' — which merely repeats the schema default. It adds no meaning for brief, intent, options, physics, object_name, or operation_id, leaving most parameters opaque.

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 largely restates the tool name: 'Inspect, propose, or execute physics_render_preview.' It adds scope ('isolated secondary candidates') and a constraint ('Body/face preserved'), but never explains what the preview operation actually is or how it differs from siblings such as physics_review or qa_render_preview.

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?

The only usage signal is 'apply defaults false' plus a reference to 'explicit QA/review gates.' It does not say when to choose this tool over physics_review, qa_render_preview, physics_accept, or other preview/review siblings, nor when not to use it.

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