production.physics_simulate_cloth

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-readonly behavior. The description adds genuine context beyond them: apply=false is the safe default, body/face geometry is preserved, and QA/review gates exist. However 'fixed physics plan and explicit QA/review gates' is unexplained jargon rather than a concrete disclosure of side effects or state changes on apply.

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?

It is short and the key safety note (apply defaults false) comes early, but the opening clause 'Inspect, propose, or execute physics_simulate_cloth' largely restates the tool name, and the compressed jargon costs clarity rather than saving space.

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 with 0% schema coverage and no required parameters, an agent needs much more: what a 'brief', 'options', or 'physics' value looks like, and how the inspect→propose→apply sequence works. The output schema covers returns, but the invocation side is 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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and it barely does: only `apply` gets clarified (false default). Intent, brief, options, physics, object_name, and operation_id are entirely unexplained, including the important operation_id likely used for the inspect/propose/execute workflow.

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 the resource (cloth physics simulation) and a scope constraint (isolated secondary candidates, body/face preserved), but the 'Inspect, propose, or execute' triad blurs what the tool actually does, and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like physics_setup_cloth, physics_analyze_cloth, or physics_bake_secondary_motion.

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 a dry-run-first workflow, which is real guidance, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over physics_setup_cloth or physics_plan_cloth_pins, nor what gates must pass before setting apply=true.

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