FEM Set Material

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context by showing an example material dict and stating that extra keys are passed through to the FEM material card. However, it does not disclose whether this replaces existing materials on the body, requires a prior analysis, or what happens to the body afterward.

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 short and front-loaded, with a one-line purpose followed by a directly usable example. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 4-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the tricky material parameter well. It still leaves the body/analysis target semantics implicit and does not mention whether the operation overrides existing material assignments, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 carries that burden. It documents the required structure of the material dict with example keys and units, which is valuable. Yet the body and analysis parameters are plain strings with no additional meaning, and name is not explained, so there is room to add more.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('Bind a material to a body in an analysis') that identifies the operation and its object. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling fem_set_nonlinear_material, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can tell what it does.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use fem_set_material versus alternatives such as fem_set_nonlinear_material or material_select. The context implies it is the standard linear material assignment, but no exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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