cst_add_mesh_refinement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It says refinement creates a finer mesh, but omits whether the setting persists across solver runs, whether it requires an existing mesh setup or solver type, what happens if the named solid does not exist, and whether successive calls accumulate. For a configuration-mutating tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the effect. No filler, though the second sentence could have carried more decision-relevant detail instead of illustrative examples.

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 3-parameter mesh-mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and effect but leaves prerequisites, persistence, and error conditions unaddressed. Adequate for a basic call, not 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the default and meaning of refinement_factor ('mesh cells are divided by this value'), so the schema already handles parameter meaning. The description adds only the notion of targeting a solid's local region, not new parameter detail.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Add local mesh refinement to a specific solid') and names concrete use cases (feed points, gaps, thin layers). It is clearly a local/geometry-scoped mesh operation, though it never explicitly positions itself against close siblings like cst_add_fixpoint_mesh, cst_set_mesh_density, or cst_set_adaptive_mesh.

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 mention of 'critical geometry features like feed points, gaps, or thin layers' implies when local refinement is warranted, but there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternative mesh tools among the many mesh-related siblings.

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