create_mesh_with_hypotheses

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden, but it fails to mention important traits such as whether the mesh is immediately computed (given the 'compute' flag), side effects on the study, or requirements. The description only lists parameters without explaining behavioral consequences.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by clear lists of algorithm values and hypotheses keys. Every entry adds value, with no redundant 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 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description omits critical context such as the effect of the 'compute' flag, how the mesh creates objects in the study, and the relationship to the simpler create_mesh tool. The parameter lists help, but the overall operational context is incomplete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by enumerating supported algorithm values and common hypotheses keys, adding real semantics beyond the schema's bare types. However, it does not explain 'compute', 'mesh_name', or 'shape_ref', which remain underspecified.

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 action ('Create mesh with explicit algorithm and detailed hypotheses'), identifying a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'create_mesh' or 'compute_mesh', so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_mesh or compute_mesh. The description focuses entirely on parameter values rather than usage context or exclusions.

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