setup_rbd_sim

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool builds the entire RBD network in one call and includes fracture and solver, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether existing nodes are overwritten, whether it cooks the network, or what happens when geo_path is invalid.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage preference, then source geometry guidance, then parameter summaries. Every sentence adds value, and the Args block is easy to scan.

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 network-building tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete by stating what the tool returns and what prerequisites are required (e.g., does geo_path need to already exist?). It covers the parameters and intent but leaves the result and failure behavior unspecified.

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 a concise Args block covering all four parameters with meaningful one-line explanations, including the fracture method default. The explanations are brief but sufficient for basic invocation.

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 and resource: 'Build an RBD rigid-body simulation network with fracture and solver.' It also states it is preferred over manual DOP wiring, which clearly distinguishes it from the generic build_network and sibling sim setup tools like setup_pyro_sim and setup_flip_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?

It explicitly says to use this instead of manual DOP wiring and gives guidance to prepare source geometry with native SOP nodes rather than VEX. It does not explicitly state when not to use it relative to other simulation setup siblings, but the RBD scope is clear enough.

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