physics_configure_boundary

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication, side effects (e.g., model modification), or constraints. The 'Returns' line is minimal.

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 moderately concise with bullet-like lists for common conditions, but some verbosity exists. It is front-loaded with the verb and purpose.

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 5 parameters, 3 required, no enums, no output schema, the description provides basic context and examples, but lacks exhaustive details on properties and return value format.

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%, but the description adds meaning by listing parameters and providing examples for boundary_condition values. However, the properties parameter is only described vaguely as a dictionary without example keys.

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 'Configure a boundary condition for a physics interface' with clear verb+resource. Examples for Electrostatics, Solid Mechanics, and Heat Transfer help clarify the purpose, but it does not differentiate from siblings like physics_boundary_selection or physics_setup_flow_boundaries.

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 description implies usage through examples of common boundary conditions per physics, but lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools like physics_setup_flow_boundaries.

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