add_boundary_condition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates that the tool modifies an existing JSON file by inserting a block, and it goes further by explaining that load types using modulus+direction behave differently from those using a value. It omits some details like validation behavior or error handling, but the core side effects are well communicated.

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, with the main action stated first followed by a necessary list of kinds and a clear distinction between parameter usage. Every sentence carries useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description provides a solid overview but remains incomplete. It covers kind selection and value/modulus semantics, yet omits important usage details for interval, process_list, model_part, and parameters_file. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the missing parameter guidance still creates gaps.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantic information beyond the bare schema by enumerating valid 'kind' values and explaining when to use 'modulus'+'direction' versus 'value'. However, it leaves several parameters unexplained—including interval, process_list, model_part, and parameters_file—and the schema itself has no descriptions, so the agent must rely on parameter names alone for those.

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 clearly states the action ('Insert') and the resource ('boundary condition / load process block into an existing ProjectParameters.json'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project_parameters or add_output_process. It further enumerates the supported kinds, making the tool's scope very specific and identifiable.

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 gives clear context by specifying that the insertion targets an existing ProjectParameters.json, implying it is for modifying already-created project files rather than creating new ones. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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