cst_configure_eigenmode_solver

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 never says whether configuration requires an open project, whether it mutates the active solver state, whether it must precede cst_run_simulation, or whether the change is reversible — all critical for a configuration tool.

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 short sentences with no filler; purpose is front-loaded and the computational/use-case context follows. Slightly padded by the domain framing that does not help select the tool.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover prerequisites, effect of configuration, and the relationship to the advanced variant and to simulation execution. It covers only the domain purpose, so it is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 f_min, accuracy, and number_of_modes are already fully documented with defaults. The description adds no unit, range, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Configure the eigenmode solver') and adds what the solver computes (resonant frequencies, field distributions). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling cst_configure_eigenmode_advanced, leaving ambiguity about which configurator to pick.

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 use-case list (filter design, resonator characterization, Q-factor extraction) implies when this solver applies, but there are no explicit preconditions (geometry/cavity must exist, frequency range must be set) and no guidance versus the advanced sibling.

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