physics_setup_heat_boundaries

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 states defaults and returns a confirmation, but does not explain whether it overwrites existing boundaries, whether it requires an existing physics interface, or what happens on error.

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 summary, bullet list of boundary types, and an Args section. It is concise, using clear sections and no redundant information.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects. However, it lacks mention that boundary lists expect integer IDs, and does not address validation or error conditions. The optional model_name is explained implicitly.

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%, and the description adds significant meaning: it explains the role of each boundary list, provides default values with units, and gives temperature in Celsius for context. This fully compensates for lack of schema descriptions.

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 sets up heat transfer boundary conditions, specifying three types (heat flux, temperature, convection). It distinguishes from sibling tools like physics_setup_flow_boundaries by focusing on thermal boundaries.

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 lists the types of boundaries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., needing a heat transfer physics already added). The context from sibling names suggests it's for heat, but no direct guidance is given.

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