Set mesh

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the call collapses any multi-mesh deck to a single mesh, which the idempotentHint/destructiveHint flags do not convey. There is mild tension with destructiveHint=false since a reset removes the existing multi-mesh configuration, but the primary operation is a non-deleting 'set', so this reads as a helpful scope warning rather than a hard contradiction.

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 core purpose and the ⚠ warning are front-loaded and efficient. The trailing [bulc-mcp] rule-ID references are useful pointers but slightly cryptic; overall tight and well-ordered.

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?

All four parameters are documented (by the schema), no output schema is needed, and the key multi-mesh gotcha and rule lookups are surfaced. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only return-value behavior is left implicit.

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 ni/nj/nk/xb are fully documented in the schema itself. The description restates 'resolution and domain extents' but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 and resource with scope: 'Set the computational mesh resolution and domain extents (a single &MESH).' It distinguishes itself from the sibling multi-mesh tools (set_meshes, auto_multimesh) explicitly, so an agent can pick it without opening any 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?

Names the alternatives (set_meshes / auto_multimesh) and the condition that selects them ('to keep or build a multi-mesh deck'), plus an explicit warning about when not to use it. This is textbook when-to-use / when-not guidance.

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