physics_setup_heat_boundaries

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits, but it only states the basic functionality and parameter defaults. It does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting previous boundary settings), whether the tool is idempotent, validation behavior, error cases, or what the returned 'Configuration confirmation' entails. For a tool that modifies simulation state, this is a significant gap.

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: a header sentence, a summary paragraph, and an 'Args' section. The information is front-loaded with the purpose. Some redundancy exists between the summary list of boundary types and the parameter list, but overall it is well-structured and efficient for a tool with 9 parameters.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers parameter meaning adequately but lacks broader context. It does not explain the workflow (e.g., that this tool should be called after adding heat transfer physics and before solving), nor does it describe the return value. This could lead to misuse in a multi-step simulation setup.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing all parameters with explanations (e.g., 'heat_flux_boundaries: List of boundary numbers for heat flux') and providing default values with units. However, it does not elaborate on the format of string parameters beyond the default, leaving some ambiguity for complex values like '1e6[W/m^2]'.

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 clearly states that the tool sets up Heat Transfer boundary conditions, listing three types: heat flux, temperature, and convection. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like physics_setup_flow_boundaries (for flow) and physics_add_heat_transfer (which adds the physics interface). The verb 'Setup' combined with the resource 'Heat Transfer boundary conditions' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that a heat transfer physics must already exist) or when not to use it. Sibling tools like physics_configure_boundary exist, but no comparison or exclusion is given. The description assumes the user knows the context, which is insufficient for an AI agent.

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