project_update_solver

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the deep-merge semantics of 'settings' (critical, since plain merge vs deep-merge changes outcomes), the relative-to-case-directory resolution for mesh_file, and that the result 'returns what changed'. It lacks permission/reversibility notes, but the merge and return behavior are the key traits.

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-loaded with the file and sections being edited, then dense per-parameter mapping, ending with the recommended validation step. It is one heavy paragraph rather than scannable bullets, but nearly every clause earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers the main behaviors, the parameter-to-setting mappings, and a follow-up validation step. Gaps are minor: 'stage' and 'parameters_file' semantics and any permission constraints.

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 coverage is 0% across 11 params, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains settings deep-merge with an example, the linear_solver_preset vs linear_solver_settings choice, the time_step/start_time/end_time targets, domain_size, and the indirect mesh_file/materials_file mappings (input_type 'mdpa', extensionless name). Only 'stage' and 'parameters_file' are left unexplained.

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: updating solver_settings / problem_data of a ProjectParameters.json. It is clearly scoped against siblings like project_set_setting and project_update_process by naming the exact file sections it mutates.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: which field each argument drives, that linear_solver_preset pulls a block from list_linear_solver_presets (or you can pass linear_solver_settings), and an explicit follow-up workflow 'Run validate_project_parameters(deep) afterwards'. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, but the routing and post-step guidance are strong.

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