cst_configure_time_domain_solver

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral context about how the solver works (pulse excitation, single-run broadband output), but it never states what invoking this tool actually does to the project – whether it overwrites existing solver settings, and that it only configures (execution requires cst_run_simulation).

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the differentiator. No filler or repetition.

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?

All six optional parameters are self-documented and no output schema is needed, but the description omits the crucial lifecycle fact that this only configures the solver and must be followed by cst_run_simulation, and it gives no guidance on defaults versus overriding them for broadband accuracy.

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% and every parameter has a documented default and purpose (accuracy in dB, max_time_steps 0=auto, excitation enum, impedance, port, normalization). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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 time domain (transient) solver") and adds that it computes S-parameters, fields, and farfield over the full band in one run, which lets an agent separate it from cst_configure_frequency_domain_solver and cst_configure_eigenmode_solver. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it's clear but not fully self-differentiating.

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?

"CST's flagship solver for broadband simulations" hints at the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the frequency-domain or integral-equation siblings that would be the alternatives. Usage must be inferred.

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