Add nozzle

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false), while the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it enumerates the DEVC, PROP, PART, SPEC and REAC entries automatically created and notes REAC alignment happens only when no reaction is set. This goes well beyond structured fields and helps predict side effects.

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 front-loaded with 'Convenience: add...' followed by one dense sentence, with no filler text. The long parenthetical enumerations of namelist fields hurt readability slightly, as bullet points would be clearer for an agent parsing the side effects.

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?

For an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers creation behavior and side effects well, including the important REAC alignment condition. It omits prerequisites such as needing an open project or existing simulation, but annotations and the schema cover the remaining safety and parameter details.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds value by mapping parameters to the FDS namelist fields they populate (e.g., mass_flow_rate/flow_ramp_points into PROP, spec_id into SPEC) and mentioning the built-in fuel database. It does not restate every default, but adds conceptual meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb 'add' and resource 'Lagrangian-particle virtual fuel nozzle', with a concrete example (hydrogen TPRD jet release). It distinguishes itself from generic siblings like add_prop/add_device by framing itself as a convenience that automatically builds the full nozzle setup, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied through 'Convenience' and the hydrogen TPRD jet-release example, which points to when this tool is appropriate. However, no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g., manually using add_prop/add_device/add_species) are provided, leaving routing to inference.

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