EM Induction Heating Submit

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

Annotations mark this as destructive and not read-only, but the description adds much-needed behavioral detail: it is asynchronous, returns ok:false instead of raising when ElmerSolver is absent, validates results using two named ratio gates, and returns a job handle. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and helps an agent anticipate side effects and failure modes.

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 dense and technical, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically: workflow, prerequisites, validation gates, parameters, and return shape. Some formula detail is arguably more than necessary, but it supports the stated validation behavior. Overall it earns its length without being bloated.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields and polling mechanism. It also covers failure mode and prerequisite. The main gap is ambiguity around the two return shapes ('degradation dict' vs job_id payload) and incomplete parameter coverage, but the overall context is strong for a complex async simulation 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 for 15 undocumented parameters. It explains several key ones: heat_duration_s, conductor, conductivity_s_m, thermal properties (cp, k, density), and case_dir. However, it leaves nx, ny, sif, mu_r, depths, n_steps, a_surface, and frequency_hz unexplained, which is a meaningful gap given zero 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 states a specific verb ('couples induction heating via Elmer') and resource target ('completes em_induction_submit into a THERMAL answer'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like em_induction_submit and em_skin_depth by describing the multi-step thermal workflow. This is unambiguous and actionable for an agent.

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 explicitly explains when this tool is relevant (as the thermal follow-up to em_induction_submit), its asynchronous nature, the requirement for ElmerSolver, and the recommended polling pattern via job_result. It does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond the parent induction tool, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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