setup_vellum_sim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it builds the entire network in one call and names the components (configure node and solver). However, it does not mention side effects such as overwriting existing nodes, prerequisites like a valid geo_path, or whether it cooks the simulation, leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a usage preference, a workflow tip, and clean parameter documentation. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 build tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information needed to call it: what it does, when to prefer it, and what each parameter means. It could be more complete by mentioning return values or failure preconditions, but those are not critical for correct invocation.

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%, but the description includes an Args section that explains all four parameters meaningfully. It specifies geo_path as source geometry path, lists valid sim_type values, defines substeps as solver substeps, and clarifies name as top-level geo node name, fully compensating for the empty schema descriptions.

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 a Vellum simulation network with configure node and solver.' It clearly differentiates from sibling setup tools (setup_pyro_sim, setup_rbd_sim, setup_flip_sim) by specifying Vellum and by stating it is preferred over manual DOP wiring.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Preferred over manual DOP wiring — builds the entire Vellum network in one call.' It also gives a workflow tip about using Vellum Drape SOP. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so exclusions are missing.

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