add_fluid_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to mention what the tool does (e.g., adds a fluid flow to an object), what side effects occur, or what the output represents. The description is entirely non-behavioral, consisting only of enum-like values.

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 extremely short, which technically is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It fails to front-load any purpose or context. A concise description should still convey meaning; this is a fragment that reads like an unfinished thought.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description is fundamentally incomplete for a tool that presumably performs an action in a 3D scene. It does not explain what the tool does, what the object_name parameter is for, or how flow_type affects the result. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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 provides partial semantics for flow_type by listing example values, but it completely omits object_name, which is the required parameter. The description does not explain what 'object_name' refers to or how it interacts with flow_type, leaving a critical gap.

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 is a single line listing possible values for flow_type ('SMOKE, FIRE, LIQUID, etc.'). It does not state a verb or resource, nor what 'add_fluid_flow' accomplishes. It reads as a truncated parameter hint rather than a description of the tool's purpose, making it nearly a tautology of the parameter name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like add_fluid_domain or add_force_field. The agent is left completely without direction on selection.

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