production.physics_verify_primary_integrity

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely useful behaviour: apply defaults to false, the physics plan is fixed, and explicit QA/review gates exist. It still does not say what is actually mutated when apply=true beyond the assurance that body/face are preserved.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the safety-critical detail (apply=false default, body/face preserved) is front-loaded. Slight loss for the comma-list verb framing that spends words without adding precision.

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 six-parameter, zero-documented-parameter tool with no title, this is too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the meaning of intent/options/physics/object_name and the propose-vs-execute distinction are missing, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct non-default call.

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, so the description carries the full burden. It clarifies only 'apply' (defaults false). brief, intent, options, physics, and object_name remain completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 resource is named (physics_verify_primary_integrity) and the scope is bounded to 'isolated secondary candidates', plus a concrete outcome hint ('Body/face preserved'). But the verb is muddled: 'Inspect, propose, or execute' bundles three modes, and 'execute <tool name>' essentially restates the name rather than describing the operation.

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 gives a default-behaviour cue ('apply defaults false') and mentions QA/review gates, which implies a dry-run-then-apply flow. However, it never says when to choose this over closely related siblings such as physics_review, physics_validate-style checks, physics_compare_before_after, or physics_accept, nor does it state prerequisites.

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