Upload Tidy3D draft / 上传 Tidy3D 草稿

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be a non-destructive write. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that confirmation is required and that no solving starts, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences (bilingual) with zero filler. The core action ('upload without starting') is front-loaded, and the precondition is stated efficiently.

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 presence of an output schema and full schema coverage for inputs, the description covers the essential behavior and precondition. It doesn't mention validation steps (e.g., validate_simulation) or error handling, but these are not strictly required for calling the tool. The mention of 'explicit confirmation' aligns with the confirm_upload parameter, providing enough context.

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 100%, so each parameter (task_name, folder_name, confirm_upload, simulation_json) is already documented. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints on simulation_json format or how confirm_upload interacts with the 'explicit confirmation' phrase. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('upload'), a clear resource ('Tidy3D draft'), and explicitly scopes the action as 'without starting it', distinguishing it from start_simulation. This is precise and unambiguous.

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 mentions preconditions ('environment gate and explicit confirmation') and implies that this tool is for uploading only, not running (contrasting with start_simulation). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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