physics_add_heat_transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the tool adds physics but lacks information about side effects, required prior state, idempotency, or whether existing heat transfer physics is replaced. Minimal behavioral context.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence. Parameters are listed clearly with defaults, and return info is mentioned. Every sentence serves a purpose without waste.

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?

The description provides minimal context for a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain the implications of adding heat transfer physics, required model state, or how the returned info can be used. Adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining domain_selection and model_name parameters, including defaults. However, it does not elaborate on valid selection names or behavior, remaining at a baseline level.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Add' and resource 'Heat Transfer physics', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like physics_add_electrostatics or physics_add_solid_mechanics.

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 implies usage for adding heat transfer physics but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as physics_add or other physics-specific tools. No criteria or prerequisites are given.

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