create_surface_to_surface_contact_exp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the creation action and adds the analysis type, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites (e.g., master/slave surfaces and a contact property must already exist), or how the interaction is attached to the model.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler and the key action is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity leaves out important context that is penalized in other dimensions.

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?

Given this is a creation tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description is far too minimal. It does not mention required preconditions, the relationship to other contact tools, or any guidance on how the parameters should be supplied. The presence of an output schema is not enough to compensate for the missing operational context.

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% and the description mentions none of the seven parameters, including required fields like master_surface, slave_surface, and interaction_property. The description provides no guidance on parameter meaning, format, or relationships, so the agent receives no value beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('surface-to-surface contact interaction'), and adds the qualifier 'for explicit analysis' to distinguish it from the sibling create_surface_to_surface_contact tool. An agent can readily tell what this tool does and which sibling it likely complements.

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 phrase 'for explicit analysis' provides clear context that this tool is intended for explicit analysis procedures, separating it from the non-exp contact creation tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as create_general_contact_exp.

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