cst_set_adaptive_mesh

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

Description explains that the solver runs multiple passes, refines in high-gradient regions, and converges within threshold. However, it does not mention that it stops after max_passes even if not converged, which is a key behavior. With no annotations, this is a notable 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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second explains the mechanism. Every word earns its place. No extraneous text.

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 configuration tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. Lacking context of its role in the simulation setup sequence is a minor gap, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter descriptions, only framing the behavior with 'when enabled'. No additional context for each parameter.

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 configures adaptive mesh refinement, a specific and distinct function among siblings. The verb 'configure' and resource 'adaptive mesh refinement' are precise. No tautology.

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 when adaptive refinement is desired but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cst_add_mesh_refinement or cst_set_mesh_type. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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