add_remeshing_process

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so richly: remeshing happens ONCE at setup before the solver initializes, the driving field must already be on nodes via mdpa NodalData, node/element renumbering consequences, and incompatibility with checkpoints and MPI. This is behavioral context far beyond a bare signature.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does before the strategy details and constraints, and every sentence carries information. It is dense with multi-clause sentences and runs fairly long, so it could be tightened, but there is no 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 complex, high-stakes mutation of a config file, the description covers timing, prerequisites, failure modes, exclusions, and the offline alternative. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; nothing essential for calling this correctly is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well for the important parameters: it explains both strategy values (hessian=second derivatives, levelset=zero of signed-distance variable), the meaning of 'variable' and the required GRADIENT counterpart, and that min_size/max_size default to values derived from the current mesh. It does not explain model_part, freeze_sub_model_parts, or parameters_file, leaving those gaps.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add an MMG remeshing process (MeshingApplication's mmg_process) to a ProjectParameters.json') plus the effect (mesh adapted while the case runs). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling mesh_remesh, which is the alternative for offline refinement.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (adapt mesh during run, hessian vs levelset strategies) and when-not (remeshing inside the solution loop crashes solvers and 'is not offered'; cases with renumbering are refused by studies, checkpoints/resume, MPI launch, interactive sessions). It names the alternative mesh_remesh with the tradeoff.

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