femm_experiment_force_vs_position

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

With annotations absent, the description carries the entire behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses side effects (geometry is moved back at the end, model left solved at the start position), the default for force_groups, a built-in correctness check (WST force vs virtual work dW'/ds), and the returned row layout plus csv/json/png artifact paths.

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 semantics and organized into purpose, applicability, prerequisites, example, and return shape. Dense but virtually every sentence adds information; the example and the return-row enumeration are the only slightly expensive parts.

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 complex multi-parameter experiment tool with no output schema, the description supplies the sweep semantics, prerequisite setup, side-effect behavior, a worked example, and the exact return columns/artifacts. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 define parameters, and it covers the important ones: groups, dx/dy as per-step problem-unit displacement, steps (implied by the 9-step example), and the force_groups default. Only `session` and `start_offset` go unexplained, which is a minor gap given how much else is specified.

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 and resource: sweep the parts in `groups` by (dx, dy) per step, re-solve, and record WST force, coenergy, and flux linkage. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling experiment tools such as femm_experiment_torque_vs_angle or femm_experiment_cogging without opening any 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 concrete application context ('actuators, plungers, coilguns') and hard prerequisites (moving parts must be surrounded by air and carry their own group number via femm_set_group; axisymmetric dy moves along z). It does not explicitly name which sibling experiment tool to prefer when the sweep axis differs, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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