FEM Set Solver

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, so the description is not required to repeat that. It does add useful behavior: 'Sensible CCX defaults are filled in if omitted,' which clarifies how missing tunables are handled. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as whether an existing solver is overwritten or what happens if the analysis is invalid, leaving some ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an example. It front-loads the primary purpose, immediately explains the key 'kind' parameter, and provides a concrete tunables example. There is no wasted wording, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 relatively simple configuration tool, the description covers the main purpose and default behavior, but misses crucial workflow context such as requiring an existing analysis, the effect of calling it multiple times, and any return values or error conditions. Given no output schema and no annotation hints about these, the description should provide more guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It does explain 'kind' (ccx or elmer) and 'tunables' with an example, but leaves 'name' and the required 'analysis' unexplained. While 'analysis' might be inferred from context, the lack of explicit explanation for two of four parameters, especially the required one, is a shortfall.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add a solver to an analysis.' It specifies the resource (solver) and the target (analysis), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing solely on solver configuration, not materials, constraints, or meshing. The mention of 'ccx' and 'elmer' further clarifies the 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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other FEM setup tools like fem_set_material or fem_run. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing analysis) or workflow position, leaving the agent to infer usage from context. This is a significant gap given the large set of sibling tools.

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