avl.trim_physical

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

Annotations declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent; the description adds substance beyond that: bounded alpha/control solve with residual checks and an independent replay, and reporting of numerical failures rather than silent failure. Provenance/dimensional-input persistence on the native results is disclosed too. It stops short of saying what a converged-vs-failed response looks like.

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?

Five short sentences, goal front-loaded, no filler. The telegraphic style ('Mach remains explicit') is dense but each clause carries information; a slightly more explicit subject in the middle sentences would help.

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?

With no output schema, the description still says results are saved with dimensional inputs and conversion provenance and that numerical failures are surfaced, which is the key return-value behavior for a solver. Combined with the annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call this 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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does cover the important physical inputs (SI mass/weight, density, speed, declared geometry and CG length units, explicit Mach). But it says nothing about model_path, references, outputs, case_name or timeout_seconds, so several parameters remain undocumented by either channel.

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: 'Prepare lift=weight and zero pitching moment about explicit CG, then verify trim', plus that it solves alpha and one control. The physical-loading framing (mass/weight, density, speed) separates it from the plain avl.trim family, though it never names the sibling it supersedes, leaving the agent to infer which trim variant to pick.

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?

'No thrust balance, mass file or eigenmodes' and 'Mach remains explicit' give real cues about what this tool is not for, which helps routing. There is still no explicit 'use avl.trim instead when X' statement, so alternatives must be inferred from the other tools' names.

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