Set meshes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that, disclosing side effects (config.mesh union bbox and OPEN-boundary vents kept consistent), four engine constraints, and the automatic switch to MM2 storage plus composite block-CG v2 pressure solve at ratios >=1:4. It stops short of stating permissions or failure/rollback behavior, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and mode switch before caveats; the numbered engine constraints are dense but each earns its place given the complexity. Slightly long with the trailing rule-tag references, keeping it from a 5.

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 a complex, destructive mesh-replacement operation with no output schema, the description covers constraints, side effects, engine behavior, and a verification path (list_meshes). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic constraints on how the mesh list must be built: CUBIC cells at finest-cell x 2^k, boundaries on fine-grid indices, and no-overlap/no-gap tiling, plus ordering. These materially guide parameter construction beyond the schema's field-level 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Replace the whole &MESH deck with an explicit list of meshes') and immediately clarifies the single-mesh mode switch. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like set_mesh, merge_meshes, slice_mesh, and auto_multimesh 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?

Explicitly names two downstream/alternative tools and the conditions selecting them: 'Verify with list_meshes; for shape-driven placement prefer auto_multimesh.' This tells the agent both when to use this tool and when to route elsewhere.

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