geometry_external_cylinder_oh

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is created (16 connected blocks, automatic boundary naming with specific patch types), the irreversibility of the template (mesh_configure cannot override; a new session is required to change geometry), and the quasi-2D one-cell extrusion. It does not discuss revision-conflict behavior (expected_revision), idempotency, or failure modes, which keeps it short of a 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 operation, then geometry, then naming, then workflow and constraints; every sentence carries information. The coordinate-frame sentence is dense but justified for a geometry builder. Slightly long, but no obvious padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers geometry, auto-assigned boundary types, and the surrounding workflow. The main remaining gap is that most of the 15 inputs (especially the cell-count parameters and revision/request-key fields) are left to self-descriptive names, which is a minor but real shortfall for a parameter-heavy template builder.

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% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for the geometric params (metres for span/width/length/diameter/upstream, the coordinate frame, first_cell_height, and the 'cell counts' role), but says nothing about the six count parameters individually (radial/upstream/downstream/transition/cross_stream/circumferential cells) or about session_id, expected_revision, and request_key. Partial compensation only.

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 (build a conformal external-cylinder O-H template) and pins down the exact geometry: centre (0,0), x from -upstream to length-upstream, y ±width/2, 16 blocks, one cell in z. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling flow case with 'This is external flow, not a pipe bore,' so the agent can tell it apart from geometry_pipe_oh without opening a 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?

Gives preconditions ('in an empty session'), downstream sequencing ('then call mesh_generate, mesh_export and openfoam_prepare'), and hard restrictions ('mesh_configure cannot override this template', 'To change its geometry or counts, create a new session'). It also states the when-not case (pipe bore), leaving little to inference.

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