setup_pyro_sim

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'builds the entire pyro network in one call', which is more of a usage convenience than a behavioral guarantee. It does not disclose whether existing nodes are overwritten, whether the source geometry is modified, what permissions are needed, or what the resulting network contains. For a mutation-like operation, this is a significant 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?

The description is well-structured: an opening sentence stating the core function, a usage-guidance sentence, and a compact Args list. It is front-loaded and every section earns its place. The slight redundancy between 'Build a Pyro smoke/fire simulation network' and 'builds the entire pyro network in one call' is minor, so it does not warrant a 5, but it remains concise.

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?

This is a complex setup operation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain the full context. It does not mention what node(s) are created, whether existing content is replaced, what the function returns, or any prerequisites (e.g., that source_geo must exist). An agent cannot fully predict the tool's side effects or result from the provided text.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides an Args list with one-line meanings for all five parameters, e.g., 'source_geo: Source SOP path' and 'res_scale: Resolution scale multiplier'. This adds some value, but several entries are vague (e.g., 'container: Container type' is almost tautological and does not enumerate valid values). It partially compensates but leaves ambiguity that the schema does not resolve.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource statement: 'Build a Pyro smoke/fire simulation network from source geometry.' It clearly identifies what is built and from what, and the subsequent line ('For custom setups beyond what this provides, use create_node with DOP nodes...') distinguishes it from the generic creation tool. This is unambiguous and immediately scopes the tool.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Preferred over manual DOP wiring — builds the entire pyro network in one call') and when not to ('For custom setups beyond what this provides, use create_node with DOP nodes...'). It names the alternative and the condition that selects it, giving an agent clear decision-making guidance.

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