physics_add_solid_mechanics

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action and return value. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing physics is replaced), required permissions, or model state expectations. The agent lacks insight into behavioral impacts.

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: one sentence for purpose, two lines for args, and one for returns. No redundant information, front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description only vaguely states 'Created physics info'. It omits context about model requirements, component selection, or how this interacts with other physics. For a tool with many siblings, more contextual completeness is needed.

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 minimal parameter context: it names the parameters and states defaults. However, it does not explain the format of 'domain_selection' or what 'Selection name' means, leaving ambiguity. Baseline for 0% coverage is low, and this is adequate but not rich.

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 'Add Solid Mechanics physics for structural analysis', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like physics_add_electrostatics and physics_add_heat_transfer by explicitly naming 'Solid Mechanics' and its application area.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the generic 'physics_add' or other specific physics tools. The description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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