em_induction_heating_submit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses async submission, the no-raise failure contract ({ok:false, reason, install}), the solver dependency, the two physics gates and their live values, and the accepted inputs. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a submit tool.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded, leading with what the tool is before the mechanics. The embedded formulas and parentheticals are justified by the physics, though the paragraph is long and could be tightened.

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 complex 15-parameter coupled multiphysics job with no output schema, the description covers the return contract (job_id/status/cache_hit then job_result fields) and the failure path thoroughly. The gap is the undocumented numeric parameters, which leaves an agent guessing on mesh and excitation inputs.

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 coverage is 0% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only partly does: it clarifies conductor vs conductivity_s_m, that thermal rho/cp/k are explicit, and the role of heat_duration_s and case_dir. The mesh/numerics parameters (nx, ny, n_steps, depths, mu_r, a_surface, frequency_hz, sif) remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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+resource (coupled induction heating via Elmer) and explicitly positions itself relative to the sibling em_induction_submit by saying it 'completes' it into a THERMAL answer. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Makes clear this is the thermal follow-on to em_induction_submit and that it is asynchronous ('poll job_result'), and notes the alternative path when ElmerSolver is absent (returns {ok:false, ...}). It gives strong positive context but no explicit when-not-this-tool statement beyond the missing-solver case.

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