Set run options

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

Annotations already disclose mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, and closed-world scope. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: it explicitly warns 'Writes files on this PC at the path you give,' a filesystem side effect the annotations do not capture, plus references to governing rules (GEN-016, SIM-002, SIM-009) retrievable via bulc_knowledge_search.

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 is front-loaded and useful, but the description is dense with parentheticals and a nested cut-cell explanation that crowds the sentence. The bulc rule-ID block is boilerplate that consumes space without helping invocation.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering its safety profile and no output schema, the description covers all three parameters, the file-write side effect, and the governing-rule path. Its main gap is workflow context — how this pairs with mesh cut-cell setup and simulation start.

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 0%, so the description carries the load, and it does: it explains solver_type's enum values with meaningful distinctions (gpu vs gpu_cutcell octree cut-cell engine beta bound to the Mesh cut-cell tab, vs cpu_openmp), plus what cpu_threads and fds_output_path control. Meaningful compensation for a bare 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 and resource (set simulation RUN options) and enumerates the three settings it controls (solver type, CPU thread count, FDS output path), which maps to the RUN dialog. It's clearly distinguishable from sibling settings tools like set_mesh, set_numerics, and set_time, though it never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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 says what can be configured but never when to call it versus alternatives such as set_simulation_mode, set_numerics, or before sim_start/run_simulation. The rule-ID references imply a governed step but give no selection guidance, so an agent must infer the workflow position.

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