multiphysics_add

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

No annotations provided, so description has full burden. It discloses the action (adds coupling) and return type but omits side effects, error behavior, or what happens if coupling already exists.

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?

Description is short, front-loaded with purpose, and well-structured with Args/Returns sections. No redundant sentences; every sentence adds value.

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?

Adequately covers parameters and purpose but is incomplete on return value details ('Created coupling info' is vague) and parameter relationships (e.g., coupling_type implies required physics). Given no output schema, more detail is expected.

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%, but the description lists all three parameters with examples for coupling_type, adding significant meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks constraints on physics_list (e.g., required number of interfaces) and model_name format.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Add a multiphysics coupling between physics interfaces,' identifies the resource (multiphysics coupling), and lists common coupling types, distinguishing it from sibling tools that add single physics interfaces.

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?

Provides examples of coupling types and their combinations, hinting at usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like physics_add_* or any prerequisites.

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