setup_pyro_sim

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden; it does disclose the concrete side effect (a whole network of nodes is created in one call) and implicitly that it is a scene-mutating write. However it omits whether it overwrites existing nodes, whether it cooks the result, permission/scene-load prerequisites, and failure behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then sibling routing, then a compact Args block. No filler sentences, though the Args lines are so terse they border on restating parameter names.

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 five-parameter, annotation-less, output-schema-less builder, the description covers purpose, alternative, and parameter roles adequately but says nothing about what is returned (node path?), whether the new network is cooked, or how it interacts with pre-existing scene content — gaps an agent must guess at.

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, and it does name all five parameters with a one-line role each (source SOP path, container type, resolution scale, DOP substeps, top-level geo node name). But it gives no formats, valid values, or default values, and leaves questions open such as which container types are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Build a Pyro smoke/fire simulation network from source geometry' — and enumerates exactly what gets constructed (Pyro Source, Volume Rasterize Attributes, Pyro Solver, File Cache). This cleanly separates it from siblings like setup_rbd_sim, setup_flip_sim, and setup_vellum_sim.

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?

Explicitly says it is 'Preferred over manual DOP wiring' and names the fallback path: 'For custom setups beyond what this provides, use create_node with DOP nodes (pyrosolver, smokeobject, volumesource, etc.).' Both the when and the when-not are stated with the alternative tool named.

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