propagate_numerical

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It outlines force models and parameters but omits critical aspects such as performance characteristics, error behavior, or output format (e.g., the structure of the propagated state).

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 purpose and force model overview, followed by a structured Args list. However, the parameter documentation is lengthy and could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Given 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics and references a related tool (list_propagation_options), but lacks explanation of output format, error scenarios, and performance considerations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing an Args section that explains each parameter's purpose and format (e.g., 'epoch: Initial epoch (ISO string)'), though some descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Override solar radiation pressure toggle').

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 specifies 'Propagate a satellite orbit using high-fidelity numerical integration' and lists configurable force models, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like propagate_keplerian and propagate_sgp4 by emphasizing numerical integration with customizable models.

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 description mentions 'Use list_propagation_options() to see available force model presets and overrides,' implying the context for force model selection, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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