production.physics_status

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

Annotations already indicate this is non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds some useful behavioral context — body/face preservation and default non-apply behavior with explicit QA/review gates — but does not explain what mutation occurs when apply is true or what the review gates enforce.

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 action, but it is fragmented and cryptic rather than structured. The first clause is largely tautological, while the later clauses carry most of the useful information.

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?

With six parameters, no required parameters, and no schema descriptions, the description should compensate but does not. Output schema presence reduces the need to explain return values, but the tool's purpose, mode selection, and parameter meanings remain 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 six parameters. The description only echoes that apply defaults false, which is already in the schema, and gives no meaningful guidance for brief, intent, options, physics, or object_name.

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 an action (inspect/propose/execute) and a target (physics_status on isolated secondary candidates), but 'physics_status' largely restates the tool name and is not defined. It does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as physics_review, physics_plan, or physics_verify_primary_integrity.

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?

It mentions apply defaults false and QA/review gates, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The alternatives among the many physics_* siblings are not addressed.

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