Configure Fluent Solver

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond what the annotations already provide. It doesn't disclose prerequisites (e.g., a loaded Fluent case), side effects (e.g., whether settings are applied immediately), or reversibility. Since annotations already mark it as a non-destructive mutation, the description does not enrich the agent's understanding of the tool's runtime 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope: 'Configure viscosity, energy, and steady/transient solver settings.'

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?

This is a simple tool with three optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose but omits context such as when to call it relative to other steps (e.g., after reading a case) and what the output contains (though output schema exists). It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'viscosity' to viscous_model, 'energy' to energy, and 'steady/transient' to transient, giving basic semantic context. However, it does not explain the meaning of each option (e.g., turbulence models) or the implications of enabling energy, so it offers only a minimal interpretation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Configure viscosity, energy, and steady/transient solver settings.' It uses a specific verb ('configure') and resource ('solver settings'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like fluent_set_boundary and fluent_set_material by focusing on solver-level configuration.

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 description makes it obvious when to use this tool: whenever the user needs to set solver-related parameters. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling tools like fluent_set_boundary and fluent_set_material, which cover other configuration aspects.

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