physics_add_electrostatics

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It implies state modification ('Add') but does not explicitly state that it modifies the model or requires an existing model. No mention of side effects, required permissions, or performance implications.

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 very concise: one-sentence purpose followed by standard Args/Returns. Every sentence serves a clear purpose. No redundancy or wordiness.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameter defaults, but lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., model must exist), return value details beyond 'Created physics info', and error conditions. Considering no annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides default values ('all domains', 'current model') and brief meaning for both parameters. This adds value beyond schema, but lacks detailed explanations such as valid format for selection names or model names.

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?

Verb 'Add' with specific resource 'Electrostatics physics interface' clearly states the action. The phrase 'for electric field analysis' provides additional context. Among sibling physics_add tools, this one is distinct due to 'electrostatics', meeting the high bar for specificity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other physics_add tools like physics_add_heat_transfer or the generic physics_add. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The description is purely declarative.

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