femm_experiment_ac_sweep

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose real side-effect semantics: other probdef settings are kept and the original frequency is restored after the sweep, and `current` overrides every swept circuit's current. It omits runtime/cost expectations for a multi-frequency solve, but the state-restoration disclosure is genuinely useful context beyond a bare read/write hint.

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-loaded with the core purpose and formula-level output description, then prerequisites. Dense but efficient; the arrow notation is terse rather than wasteful, though the invariant-check sentence could be trimmed.

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 or annotations exist, and the description supplies the return contents (Z, R, L, losses) plus a verification invariant, preconditions, and state-restoration behavior. Missing `session` semantics keeps it short of fully complete for a 4-parameter experiment 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 does explain `current` (overrides all swept circuits' current) and implies `circuits`/`frequencies` behavior via 'swept circuit', but `session` is never mentioned and `frequencies`/`circuits` syntax and defaults are left undocumented.

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 names a specific operation (time-harmonic frequency sweep in Hz) and enumerates exactly what it computes (Z = V/I, R(f), L(f), and total/resistive/hysteresis losses across blocks). This clearly separates it from sibling experiment tools like femm_experiment_inductance or femm_experiment_backemf.

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?

It states concrete preconditions — conductors must have conductivity and the mesh must resolve the skin depth, pointing at femm_estimate skin_depth — which tells the agent when the tool can be called. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the other femm_experiment_* siblings, so routing is only partly addressed.

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