femm_material_modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this mutates an existing material and that a re-solve is needed, but it does not cover error behavior, return values, permissions, or whether changes are persisted.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and examples, and the long key lists are necessary because the schema provides no property descriptions. Every part contributes to correct invocation without filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description supplies the most important missing context: valid keys, examples, and the need to re-solve. It omits session semantics and failure behavior, but is largely sufficient for calling the tool 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 detailed examples and physics-specific key lists for the 'changes' object add substantial value beyond the schema. However, the top-level 'name' parameter is only implied and the 'session' parameter is not explained.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: change properties of a material already in the model. It also includes the underlying API operation (xi_modifymaterial), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like femm_material_add or femm_material_load.

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?

The phrase 'already in the model' clearly scopes usage to existing materials, implicitly steering agents away from add/load tools. It also states 'Re-solve afterwards,' giving the required follow-up action, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other material operations.

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