femm_material_add_bh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that clear_first removes the existing curve (a destructive behavior), the strict ordering constraints on points (starting at [0,0], strictly increasing), and the prerequisite state. It omits session behavior and any error/failure semantics.

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 action, then branches into the two problem-type formats and the clear_first/prerequisite notes. The parenthetical API function names (mi_addbhpoint, hi_addtkpoint) add specificity without much bloat; the text is dense but every clause earns its place.

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 and no annotations, so the description must stand alone, and it largely does: both physics variants, point formats, clear_first destruction, and the material-existence prerequisite are covered. Only session semantics and return behavior are unaddressed, minor gaps for this operation.

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 for 3 of 4 params: `name` is the target material, `points` gets full format detail including units and ordering rules per problem type, and `clear_first` is explained. Only `session` (default 'main') is left unexplained.

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: 'Give material `name` a nonlinear curve', covering both magnetics (B-H) and heat-flow (T-k) variants. This clearly distinguishes it from generic material tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling femm_material_modify, which an agent might confuse it with.

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 a concrete prerequisite: 'The material must already exist in the model (femm_material_add or femm_material_load)', naming the setup tools. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over femm_material_modify or femm_material_add, so no exclusions are provided.

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