run_antenna_modeling_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions saving artifacts (a side effect), but doesn't state whether execution is synchronous, if it can be re-run, what happens on failure, or what 'all intermediate artifacts' means. This is a significant gap for an execution tool.

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?

A single sentence of 12 words that is front-loaded with an action verb and contains no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it a model of conciseness.

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 tool that executes a multi-stage job, the description is underspecified. It omits prerequisites (e.g., job must exist), runtime behavior, output semantics, and how the through_stage parameter defaults. An output schema exists, but the description doesn't help the agent understand what to expect from execution.

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 adds meaning to through_stage via 'through the requested stage', but job_id is left implicit and valid stage values are never explained. The default 'boolean' for through_stage is weird and the description offers no clarification.

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 uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('modeling job') with scope ('through the requested stage') and an outcome ('save all intermediate artifacts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_antenna_modeling_job, get_antenna_job, and run_hfss_optimization_job.

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 implies the tool is used to execute a modeling job after creation, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or prerequisites. It does not mention that the job must first be created or when to prefer this over run_hfss_optimization_job.

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