physics_add_solid_mechanics

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks disclosure of important traits such as idempotency, error handling, or effects if already added. Only basic parameter defaults and return type are mentioned.

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?

Extremely concise with no wasted words. Two sentences cover purpose and parameters, front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

Despite having no output schema and only 2 parameters, the description is too brief. It does not describe the return format ('Created physics info' is vague) or any side effects, leaving crucial gaps for an agent.

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. While it lists parameters with defaults, it does not explain what 'domain_selection' or 'model_name' mean in the COMSOL context (e.g., selection syntax, valid values). Insufficient detail.

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 it adds Solid Mechanics physics for structural analysis. The verb 'Add' and resource 'Solid Mechanics physics' are specific, distinguishing it from other physics_add_* tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like physics_add_electrostatics or the generic physics_add. The description only states the purpose without context for selection.

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