em_induction_submit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses async execution, graceful degradation to {ok:false, reason, install} instead of raising, that it returns a job_id requiring polling of job_result, and that cache_hit may be returned. It omits any safety/permission profile or cost/rate context, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite, with the return/polling contract last. It is dense but mostly earns its place, though jargon like 'P3 M6 frontier' and the exact live ratios add noise that isn't needed to invoke the tool.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the key return fields (skin_depth_exact_m, decay_length_m, phase_length_m, decay_ratio, phase_ratio) and the async polling pattern, so an agent knows how to call and follow up. Minor gaps remain around mesh params and result interpretation limits.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It embeds depth (`depths` skin depths), `frequency_hz`, and the roles of μ_r and σ in the δ formula, but leaves nx, ny (mesh dimensions) and conductor selection 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 technique and resource: AC skin effect via Elmer harmonic 2-D magnetodynamics, with the concrete operation (build slab, solve complex field, fit decay lengths of both magnitude and phase). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like em_skin_depth and em_induction_heating_submit.

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?

Gives a prerequisite (requires ElmerSolver) and the fallback behavior when absent, and indicates the async job workflow. However, it never states when to choose this tool over near siblings such as em_skin_depth or em_induction_heating_submit, leaving usage selection implied.

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