mdpa_create_sub_model_part

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it discloses meaningful behavior: the parent must already exist, entities wholly on the part's nodes are pulled in automatically, added entities drag their nodes in, and ancestors 'receive everything'. It leaves the interacting 'overwrite' parameter and failure modes unexplained.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. It leans on nested parentheses and em-dashes that make it slightly run-on, but nearly every clause carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for an 11-parameter, zero-coverage schema the description omits 'path', 'output', and 'overwrite', the last of which interacts with the documented exist_ok. Adequate on semantics, incomplete on the full parameter surface.

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% with 11 parameters, so the description must compensate; it directly explains selector, node_ids, include (with allowed values), exist_ok, and the element/condition/geometry id trio. The required 'path' and the 'output'/'overwrite' parameters are left entirely undefined, which is a real gap.

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 ('Create a sub model part') and pins down the ambiguous part with concrete naming examples ('Structure_left', 'domain.fixed' for a child). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from mdpa_edit_sub_model_part by noting exist_ok 'extends an existing part instead of failing', so an agent can tell creation from editing.

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 actionable usage context: it points to mdpa_select_nodes for selector semantics and explicitly recommends include=['condition'] 'for a load surface'. It does not, however, state when an agent should prefer this over mdpa_edit_sub_model_part or what conditions make creation inappropriate.

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