multiphysics_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a coupling, implying modification, but does not describe side effects, prerequisites, whether it overwrites existing couplings, or any authentication or rate limits. The example coupling types are useful but insufficient for complete transparency.

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 structured with a summary line, a bullet list of common coupling types, and an Args section. It is fairly concise but the list of types takes up space. Some information (e.g., 'Returns: Created coupling info') is minimal. It could be more streamlined without losing clarity.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and the tool's complexity (multiple parameters, selection of coupling types), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details, error conditions, and a fuller description of the return value. The agent may not know how to handle failures or interpret the output.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions within the schema properties), but the tool description provides an Args section that explains each parameter: coupling_type, physics_list, and model_name. It also lists valid coupling type names. This meaningfully supplements the schema, though it could provide more constraints or examples for the physics_list format.

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 purpose: 'Add a multiphysics coupling between physics interfaces.' It lists common coupling types, providing specific examples like ThermalStress and JouleHeating, which makes the purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that add individual physics interfaces or other operations.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like physics_add_*. The description implies use when coupling physics interfaces, but does not specify prerequisites (e.g., the physics must already exist) or cases where it should not be used. The lack of exclusions or comparisons limits the agent's ability to select this tool appropriately.

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