create_case

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states that a case is created from a template; it does not disclose what happens if the case already exists, whether it copies files, requires prior steps, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, compact sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded, earning a full score.

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 the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., selecting a template), potential name conflicts, and interaction with sibling tools like list_templates, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 100%, and the schema already explains each parameter (name, template, description) with defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Create a new OpenFOAM case from a template' clearly identifies the action (create), the resource (OpenFOAM case), and the method (from a template). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_case, clean_case, and list_cases, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage ('Create a new...') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as listing available templates first. It provides no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the decision to the agent's inference from the tool name and sibling list.

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