create_preliminary_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the copy is 'fresh' (not an in-place edit) and overrides are interpreted in mm/Hz and SI material units. But it omits whether it mutates existing state, requires prior setup, or can fail, so significant gaps remain for a creation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the unit caveat second. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 model-creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented free-form parameter, the description is too thin. It does not say where the model is created, what the caller gets back, how it relates to the solver siblings, or what happens on invalid overrides.

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% and the single 'parameters' argument is a free-form anyOf map with no documented keys. The description partially compensates by stating the unit system (mm/Hz, SI material units) and that values are 'overrides', implying keys map to parameter names, but it never enumerates valid keys or the accepted value shape.

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 verb 'build' and the resource 'a fresh parameterised copy of the antenna example' give a concrete action, so the purpose is not a tautology. However, it never clarifies what a 'preliminary model' is or how this differs from siblings like run_cad_script, so an agent cannot easily distinguish it from other model-construction 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative such as run_cad_script or start_solver. The agent must infer the workflow context entirely.

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