Set mesh cell size

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotent profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), yet the description still adds real behavioral context: NI/NJ/NK are derived, the deck is collapsed to a single mesh, and rule IDs (MESH-001/002/004/005) point to deeper docs. The ⚠ 'Resets any multi-mesh deck to a single mesh' is stronger language than destructiveHint=false implies, though it is defensive setting-overwrite semantics rather than irreversible deletion.

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 critical warning is front-loaded well, but the '[bulc-mcp]' line restates 'Resets a multi-mesh deck to a single mesh (MESH-004)' almost verbatim, which is redundant. The trailing rule-ID / knowledge-search pointer is useful but reads like machine-generated clutter rather than prose.

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?

No output schema, but with one fully documented parameter the description covers purpose, side effect, alternatives, and rule references, so an agent has what it needs. Only the missing contrast with the singular 'set_mesh' keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the load ('Target cell size (m), e.g. 0.1'). The description adds context about what the value drives (NI/NJ/NK from domain extents) but no units, ranges, or syntax beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('Set a uniform cell size (m)') and adds mechanism ('NI/NJ/NK are computed from the current domain extents'), so the agent knows exactly what changes. It distinguishes itself from the multi-mesh siblings by name, though it never contrasts itself with the singular 'set_mesh' also present in the sibling list.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent away: 'Use set_meshes / auto_multimesh to keep or build a multi-mesh deck,' which is a concrete when-not plus named alternatives. There is no comparable explicit statement of when this tool is the preferred choice beyond the implied 'you want a uniform cell size.'

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