setup_vellum_sim

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful composition details (the Configure recipe, solver, and I/O cache that preserves constraints and collisions), but says nothing about whether it creates new nodes versus overwriting existing ones, where nodes are placed, idempotency, or undo 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?

The purpose and the preferred-over rationale are front-loaded, and the component list and follow-up tip are compact. The bullet text and the Args list restate some of the same concepts, so it is slightly redundant but still efficient overall.

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 moderately complex network-building tool with no output schema, the description covers what gets built, all arguments, and a sensible follow-up step. It stops short of stating the resulting node path or return value, but otherwise gives an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 largely does: all five args are documented, including the valid sim_type values ('cloth', 'hair', 'grain', 'softbody') that the schema omits as an enum, and the ground flag's meaning ('turn on the solver's ground plane at y=0'). Only substeps ('Solver substeps') is described thinly.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Build a Vellum simulation network' — and immediately enumerates the components created (Configure recipe, Vellum Solver, Vellum I/O cache). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling setup_pyro_sim, setup_rbd_sim, and setup_flip_sim without needing to open any schema.

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?

'Preferred over manual DOP wiring — builds the entire Vellum network in one call' gives explicit context for when to choose this tool over the manual alternative. It also adds a follow-up recommendation (use Vellum Drape SOP to let cloth settle), but does not state when-not-to-use cases such as an existing sim or an already-configured network.

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