femm_add_circuit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose substantive traits: peak-vs-complex current interpretation, per-turn semantics for series circuits, and impedance-based splitting for parallel ones. It omits any statement of document/session prerequisites, error behavior, or what happens on re-definition, so a mutation tool's full profile is not covered.

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?

Dense but efficient: the Magnetics scope is front-loaded, followed by the current format, the series/parallel meanings, and the results pointer. Every clause adds information, though the series/parallel sentence packs several distinct concepts into one run-on.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming femm_circuit_results, which is genuinely useful. However, with zero annotation coverage and no mention of session/document prerequisites or the undocumented name/session parameters, it is only partially complete for a four-parameter mutation tool.

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 the description must compensate. It richly documents two of four parameters (current's AC/complex format, series' two modes), but says nothing about name or the session parameter that defaults to 'main'. Half the parameters are undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: defines a circuit that carries current, scoped explicitly to Magnetics problems. An agent can identify it as the circuit-definition tool and distinguish it from femm_modify_circuit or femm_add_conductor, though the distinction from the modify sibling is left implicit.

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 series=True vs series=False explanation functions as real usage guidance, telling the agent which configuration matches stranded coils versus solid conductors and how current is interpreted in each. It routes the agent to femm_circuit_results for outputs, but gives no ordering/prerequisite context (open document, session) or when-not-to-use guidance.

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