mdpa_create_structured_mesh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool writes a .mdpa file, includes a 'domain' submodelpart, attaches boundary conditions to boundary parts, and provides default element/condition types. It does not cover error scenarios or file-overwrite behavior, but the key side effects and structural output are well described.

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 somewhat dense but well-organized: it front-loads the primary purpose, then breaks down variants and defaults. Every sentence contributes useful information, but the use of parentheses and list-like structures makes it slightly harder to parse quickly. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 complexity (7 parameters, multiple mesh variants), the description is complete: it covers all required parameters for each kind, optional parameters, defaults, submodelpart structure, and the fact that an output file is written. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the meaning of 'size' and 'divisions' for each variant (e.g., size=[W,H], divisions=[nx,ny] for rectangle), the optional 'triangles' flag, and the defaults for 'element_name' and 'condition_name'. Path, while not explicitly described, is self-evident from the verb 'write it as .mdpa'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's function: 'Generate a structured mesh and write it as .mdpa.' It further specifies three distinct geometric variants (line, rectangle, box), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mdpa_inspect or mdpa_validate. The verb 'generate' and resource '.mdpa' file make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when a structured mesh is needed, and it details the supported kinds (line, rectangle, box) and their configurations. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but there are no direct sibling tools for mesh creation, and the context is sufficiently clear.

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