add_binout_tracker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behavior: trackers are applied in branch/sub-branch/component order, and a failure removes the tracker unless keep_partial=true. It does not cover permissions, duplicates, or full side effects, but the mutation and rollback behavior are well surfaced.

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 the action and branch values, then behavior, then arguments. It is dense but appropriately sized; the final Args list is somewhat redundant with the schema but adds examples and helps scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description still leaves key parameters unexplained, which could lead to incorrect invocation despite covering the critical pre-solve and partial-failure behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains branch values, gives a component example, notes ordering, and explains keep_partial, but leaves subbranch, named_selection, and analysis_index largely undefined.

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: adding a Binout Tracker via SolutionInformation.AddLSDYNAGeneralTracker. It also enumerates valid binout branches, making the operation concrete and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_binout_tracker_options.

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?

Explicitly says trackers must be added BEFORE solving and points to list_binout_tracker_options for valid names. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or direct comparison to read_binout/get_solution_information, but the timing prerequisite is clear.

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