FSI Pressure Plate Submit

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

The description reveals substantial behavior beyond annotations: the tool is asynchronous (off MCP channel), solvers run only as subprocesses, preCICE licensing is stated, and the tool degrades to an error dict when the solver stack is missing. None of these are in the annotations, so this description earns high marks for transparency.

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 long but dense and information-rich. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and differentiates the tool from siblings before diving into physics details. Every sentence contributes, though the license information and some implementation detail is borderline; no filler is present.

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?

Given that the tool has no output schema and minimal annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and runtime behavior. It covers the degradation dict, the job_id/status/cache_hit return, the poll-able result structure, and the install path, making it complete enough for agents to call the tool correctly.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates by grouping parameters into fluid, solid, and coupling categories, and clarifies that geometry is fixed. The only noticeable gap is that `timeout` is not mentioned at all, so a complete parameter map is not provided.

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 performs a partitioned fluid-structure-interaction solve on the preCICE OpenFOAM↔CalculiX stack. It is explicitly labeled the 'real coupled-field twin' of the analytic fsi_plate_deflection / fsi_interface_balance oracles, which differentiates it from the main alternative siblings.

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 clear context: this is the asynchronous, high-fidelity dual of the analytic oracles and must be paired with job_result polling. It does not explicitly state 'use X instead of Y when ...', so it lacks a hard exclusion criterion, but the twin/oracle contrast makes the intended usage reasonably clear.

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