femm_add_point_prop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully defines what `value` and `source` represent per physics module (A vs V vs T, Wb/m vs C/m vs watts), which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about overwrite semantics, error behavior when no nodes lie near `points`, or required session state.

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 primary action in the first sentence, then adds compact per-physics unit lines. Dense and information-bearing with minimal waste, though the tabular physics breakdown could be tightened.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the two most semantically loaded parameters well but leaves `name`/`session` and error/overwrite behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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, and it does explain the meaning and units of `value` and `source` across four physics types plus what `points` triggers. However `name` and `session` are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a notable gap.

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 clear verb+resource ('Define a nodal point property') and adds the optional assignment behavior to nearest nodes. It does not differentiate from the similar sibling femm_set_node_prop, but the purpose itself is 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing away from the sibling femm_set_node_prop, which operates on node properties and could plausibly be confused with this tool. The physics-type unit breakdown hints at context but does not tell the agent when to pick this tool.

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