cst_antenna_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by enumerating the side effects: substrate, ground plane, patch, feed, waveguide port, boundaries, and field monitors all get created. It stops short of saying whether existing geometry/boundaries are overwritten or what happens on rerun, which for a multi-object generator would be valuable.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, supported variants second, generated artifacts third. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 6-parameter generator with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool builds and which feed types are supported. It omits the practical prerequisites (open project, resulting object naming) an agent needs to sequence calls correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so defaults and meanings for epsilon_r, tan_d, substrate_height_mm, and ground_size_factor are already fully documented. The description only reinforces that frequency_ghz drives dimension calculation and that feed_type is limited to the three listed methods — marginal added meaning.

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 ('Create a rectangular microstrip patch antenna') plus the key capability (dimensions calculated from target frequency), which cleanly separates it from the other antenna template siblings such as cst_antenna_dipole or cst_antenna_slot.

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 makes the use case implied (you want a rectangular patch antenna, pick a feed type), but it never says when to prefer this over cst_antenna_slot, cst_antenna_pifa, or browsing via cst_list_antenna_templates, nor does it state prerequisites such as an open project or units.

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