fsi_plate_deflection

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does this well: it discloses the closed-form math used per support case, the small-deflection validity band, and returns warnings/escalate_to/valid_range_ok. It does not explicitly state that the call is a pure side-effect-free computation with no state changes, which is the only minor gap.

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?

Purpose and the sibling relationship are front-loaded, and every sentence carries technical content. It is dense and long with stacked formulas, so it is efficient rather than trim, costing it a point on conciseness.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the full return object (line_load_n_per_mm, tip_disp_mm, root_moment_nmm, reaction_n, max_stress_mpa, slenderness, fidelity, band_pct, valid_range_ok, warnings, escalate_to). An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

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% (bare titles only, no enum on `support`), so the description must compensate — and it does: it defines `support` values ('cantilever' vs 'clamped-clamped'), the role of `i_mm4` as an override, `material` vs `youngs_gpa` sourcing, `pressure_pa` acting normal to produce line load, and width/length as the wetted strip. This is meaning well beyond the schema.

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 precise verb+resource ('Exact small-deflection tip/centre deflection of a uniform-pressure-loaded thin plate strip') and immediately names the sibling it pairs with ('the closed-form twin the coupled OpenFOAM→CalculiX FSI solve (fsi_pressure_plate_submit) is gated against'). An agent can distinguish this analytic calculation from the solver tool 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?

Explicitly gives the validity condition ('Valid while δ ≲ thickness (small-deflection)') and the escalation path ('past that escalate to an NLGEOM follower-pressure ccx solve'), naming the alternative. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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