mdpa_convert_cells

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses split ratios, node handling ('mid nodes kept as unused nodes'), id preservation, sub-model-part propagation, name overrides, and that non-target cell kinds are untouched. It does not address auth, file-write side effects, or overwrite 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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core purpose and mode enumeration; each clause carries technical payload, though the packing of exception cases makes it somewhat heavy to scan.

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 mesh-conversion operation the description is thorough, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The main gap is the unaddressed output/overwrite parameters.

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 covers mode exhaustively and explains element_name/condition_name overrides, but says nothing about path, output, or overwrite semantics, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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+resource ('Convert cell kinds') and enumerates each mode's exact transformation (quad_to_tri, hex_to_tet, quadratic_to_linear), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like mdpa_transform or mdpa_extract without opening the 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?

It provides clear motivating context ('Needed e.g. for the convection-diffusion solver, which requires simplices') and states that other cell kinds are left alone, but it names no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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