fem_set_solver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that CCX defaults are filled in, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, overwrite behavior, or error handling for this add/mutation operation.

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 core action and then efficiently details kind and tunables with concrete examples. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to explain the tool's place in the FEM workflow. It covers the essential invocation details for kind and tunables, but leaves the required analysis identifier and the relationship to siblings like fem_run and fem_new_analysis unclear.

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 all four parameters. It explains kind and tunables with examples and default behavior, but it leaves name and analysis poorly described beyond the implied target of the operation, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 and resource: 'Add a solver to an analysis.' It distinguishes itself from siblings such as fem_new_analysis (create analysis) and fem_add_constraint (add constraint) by naming the exact operation. The kind options further specify the tool's scope.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fem_new_analysis, fem_run, or fem_set_material. It only implies that an analysis must already exist. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or ordering instructions.

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