Rocky Create Inlet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about persistence, side effects on the referenced surface, duplicate-inlet behavior, or required project state. It does at least make clear that this is a mutating creation operation, but that is the bare minimum.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the key setting appear immediately. Nothing in the sentence is redundant.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the schema covers all parameters, so the remaining gap is behavioral: prerequisites (open project, existing surface and particle) and side effects are unstated. For a creation tool with zero annotations, that leaves a meaningful hole an agent could trip over.

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 100%, so all four parameters (surface_id, particle_id, mass_flow_rate, unit) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, unit-range, or default information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 particle inlet on a surface') plus the key configuration it performs ('set its mass flow rate'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling rocky_create_outlet, so the agent must infer the inlet/outlet distinction from the names alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus rocky_create_outlet or other setup tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as an open project or pre-existing surface/particle definitions, even though surface_id and particle_id are required. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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