Submit AgentFEM run

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

Annotations already signal that the tool is not read-only and not idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the run happens in a separate process, returns immediately, and yields a durable job identity. This effectively communicates the async, stateful nature of the operation, though lifecycle or resource implications are not covered.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the action and includes the two most important behavioral facts: separate-process execution and immediate durable job identity. There is no redundant wording.

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 tool with three parameters and several siblings, the description leaves important gaps: parameter meanings are absent, alternative tools are not routed, and the purpose of the returned job identity (e.g., for use with get_run_status) is unstated. The output schema may cover the return shape, but the calling context remains under-specified.

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% and the description provides no parameter semantics. An agent cannot determine what `path` should point to, what `name` controls, or how `mpi_ranks` affects the run from the text alone.

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 uses a concrete verb ('start') and resource ('finite-element run'), and adds valuable detail about asynchronous execution and the immediate return of a durable job identity. It distinguishes this submit action from sibling status/result tools, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.

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?

'After preflight' provides an ordering precondition that implies the tool should be used after validation. However, it does not mention sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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