setup_pyro_sim

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say what the tool creates (which nodes/network structure), whether it modifies or replaces existing networks, what happens on name collision, or whether side effects like cooking occur — all of which matter for a network-building mutation.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economical writing, since essential information about parameters and effects is simply absent.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine defaults, resolution trade-offs, or what the resulting network looks like from this sentence alone.

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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description only implicitly covers source_geo via "from source geometry." name, substeps, res_scale, and container — the parameters that most affect simulation quality and cost — receive no explanation of valid ranges or effect.

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?

"Build a Pyro smoke/fire simulation network from source geometry" names a specific verb (build) and a specific resource (Pyro smoke/fire sim network), and the pyro domain distinguishes it from siblings like setup_flip_sim or setup_rbd_sim. It stops short of explicitly saying how it differs from setup_render or build_network, but the purpose is immediately clear.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is the pyro counterpart to the other setup_*_sim tools, and nothing states what scene state must exist first (e.g., valid source geometry, a scene context) before calling.

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