write_solver_input

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the fallback to a generate-input-only solve with input.k copied, and the multi-file consequence when Split Input File = Yes. Path constraints (allowed folder, extension, overwrite semantics) are also stated. It does not cover permissions or failure modes beyond the fallback.

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 core action and its key constraint are front-loaded, and the fallback/split-file caveats are compact. The trailing 'Args: output_path, analysis_index, overwrite' restates the schema without adding value and is the one wasted line.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the action, fallback path, split-file side effect, and path rules. The only material gap is the unexplained analysis_index, which matters for a multi-analysis tool.

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 thoroughly explains output_path constraints (.k/.key/.dyn, allowed folder, must not exist unless overwrite=True) and what overwrite controls. However, analysis_index is only listed by name with no explanation of what it selects, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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: writes the LS-DYNA keyword deck Mechanical would solve, explicitly without solving. The 'without solving' qualifier separates it from solve_analysis and submit_lsdyna_job, though no sibling is named directly.

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 'without solving' framing implies when to use it (you need the deck, not a run), and the Split Input File note hints at context. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over write_and_audit_deck, solve_analysis, or submit_lsdyna_job.

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