production.physics_setup_spring_chain

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

The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: apply defaults to false, the physics plan is fixed, QA/review gates are explicit, and body/face are preserved. It still does not explain what state is changed on execute, permission requirements, or the meaning of the QA gates, but the annotations already establish non-read-only and non-destructive behavior.

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 and default behavior. The final sentence is fragmentary and some terms such as 'fixed physics plan' are not elaborated, but there is little wasted text.

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 7-parameter tool that can inspect, propose, or execute a physics setup, the description is under-specified. Although an output schema exists, the workflow, parameter meanings, execution side effects, and QA gate behavior are not explained enough for reliable invocation.

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, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions only that apply defaults to false and refers vaguely to a fixed physics plan; brief, intent, options, physics, object_name, and operation_id remain 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 a specific operation family for spring-chain physics setup and adds scope via 'isolated secondary candidates' and 'body/face preserved.' It does not explicitly distinguish this from nearby siblings such as physics_setup_cloth or physics_generate_secondary_bones, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 phrase 'Inspect, propose, or execute' and 'apply defaults false' imply a staged workflow where the tool is safe to inspect/propose before execution. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling physics setup or generation tools, nor any stated exclusions.

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