femm_add_conductor

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses domain behavior (which 'fixed' values are legal in each physics mode and the units for each), but is silent on mutation semantics, duplicate-name handling, session requirements, and reversibility for what is clearly a write operation.

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?

Front-loads the purpose then lays out the mode/value matrix compactly in one block. Dense but each clause carries distinct information; no filler sentences.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies solid domain context and points to where solved results appear. It is complete enough to call correctly, though session semantics and write-side effects remain unstated.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it enumerates valid 'fixed' strings per physics mode and gives units for 'value' (V, C/m, K, W/m, A incl. complex at AC). Only 'name' and 'session' are left undocumented, and both are self-evident.

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 ('define a conductor property') and scopes it across the three problem types it applies to. It names sibling tools (femm_set_segment_prop, femm_circuit_results) that an agent would otherwise confuse it with, so it is distinguishable without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear workflow context: define here, then assign with femm_set_segment_prop(conductor=name), then read results via femm_circuit_results(name). It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. when a conductor already exists, or vs. add_boundary/add_circuit), but the positive routing is strong.

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