physics_boundary_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains it configures boundary conditions but does not state whether it overwrites existing conditions, requires prerequisites (e.g., physics already added), has side effects, or what 'Configuration confirmation' means. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear intro, numbered steps, and organized examples by physics type. It is moderately concise, though the examples could be streamlined. Overall, it earns its place without excessive verbosity.

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 tool's complexity (generic boundary setup, 5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers basic usage but lacks details on modification semantics, error handling, prerequisites, and return value format. It also does not guide when to use this vs. sibling tools. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 adds meaning by explaining the four steps and giving examples for common boundary conditions and their properties. However, it does not fully describe all parameters (e.g., 'physics_name' and 'model_name' have no explanation), and the 'properties' dictionary is only partially illustrated.

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 it is a generic boundary condition setup tool with boundary selection, specifying physics interface, condition type, and boundary numbers. It provides examples for common physics, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like physics_configure_boundary, physics_setup_flow_boundaries, etc.

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 says 'Use this tool to configure any boundary condition' and lists common types, which implies usage. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives (e.g., specific setup tools for flow/heat), so the agent lacks clarity on when to prefer this generic tool over siblings.

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