diana_parameter_study_prepare

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: a one-time human approval gate, that the approved plan may change geometry, mesh, material, load and solver settings, and that every case is range-checked and self-checked before submission. It leaves open what happens if approval is rejected, whether the call blocks, whether the proposal persists, and what the mutation footprint is.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the approval gate, followed by the parameter shape and the scope of permitted changes. Little waste, though the second paragraph mixes the `parameters` schema detail with unrelated behavioral guarantees about range checking.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the approval/validation narrative covers the risky parts of a mutation-adjacent tool. However, with six required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, four parameters remain opaque, which is a real completeness gap for a planning tool that must be invoked correctly the first time.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It usefully explains the shape of `parameters` (unique name, model path, and either min/max or discrete values), but `baseline_id`, `combination`, `self_checks` and `quality_checks` — all required — get no meaning at all, including what values `combination` accepts.

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: propose a parameter-study campaign and open it for one-time human approval inside DianaIE. This distinguishes it from the read-only sibling diana_parameters and from execution siblings like diana_execute or diana_solve, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: this is the preparation step before case submission, and the note that cases inside the approved envelope need no per-case GUI review hints at the downstream workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites beyond a baseline, and no routing to alternatives such as diana_review_prepare or diana_execute.

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