create_lsdyna_system_snippet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies that the tool produces journal-line text rather than performing the system creation itself, and notes the ACT extension dependency. It does not describe side effects, error conditions, or how restart mode changes behavior.

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 key information is front-loaded: it states that the tool emits Workbench journal lines for creating LSDYNA systems. The description is short and avoids filler. The trailing 'Args: restart' is abrupt and under-explained, but the overall shape is efficient.

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 one-parameter snippet generator with an output schema, the description provides the essential execution context and dependency. It remains incomplete on parameter meaning and on how the generated snippet should be used with execute_workbench_script beyond the bare mention.

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% for the single `restart` parameter. The description only says 'Args: restart' and does not explain what true/false selects, even though the earlier reference to 'LS-DYNA Restart' hints at it. This falls short of compensating for the missing schema documentation.

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 names a specific output and resource: Workbench journal lines that create an LS-DYNA or LS-DYNA Restart system. It also ties the snippet to execute_workbench_script. It does not explicitly distinguish this snippet-generator from sibling tools such as create_lsdyna_analysis, which prevents a 5.

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 mention that the output is 'for execute_workbench_script' gives implied usage context, and the note about template ids coming from the installed ACT extension is a useful prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus create_lsdyna_analysis or other creation routes, and no when-not guidance.

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