avl.prepare_trim

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it does not run AVL, returns a TrimRequest and References with provenance, assumes unbanked steady level flight with lift=weight, zero beta/rates and target Cm=0, and explicitly excludes inferred atmosphere, thrust balance and inertia modeling.

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 front-loaded with the core action and purpose, followed by requirements, return values, assumptions and exclusions. Each sentence carries useful information without redundancy.

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 nested request with no output schema, the description adequately states what is returned (TrimRequest, References, provenance) and the key physical assumptions. Some details, such as the role of model_path and optional references, are left to the schema, but the core completeness is strong.

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 description adds useful meaning for key inputs: SI mass/weight, density and speed, geometry length units, CG units, and Mach as a separate explicit input. However, it does not explain several nested request fields such as alpha_bounds_deg, control_bounds, control, fixed_controls, or tolerances, and the reported schema description coverage is low at the top level.

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 states a specific verb and resource: convert explicit SI mass/weight, density and speed to target CL. It distinguishes this preparation step from the actual AVL execution by saying 'without running AVL' and notes the outputs are usable in trim/sweep/submit.

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 clearly establishes the usage context: prepare trim inputs without running AVL, with the result usable by downstream trim/sweep/submit tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as avl.trim_physical or state when not to use this tool, but the intended workflow is clear.

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