Rocky Set Simulation Settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: not whether omitted optional parameters reset prior values or are left untouched, whether the configuration is persisted to the project, or whether it must be set before the simulation is launched. Only the bare word 'Configure' signals mutation.

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, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. There is room for one more sentence of routing or statefulness context without bloat.

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?

This is a zero-annotation mutation tool with five optional parameters and null defaults, the exact case where the description must explain partial-update semantics and prerequisites. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the missing input-side and ordering context leaves a real gap.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema; the description adds no semantics beyond the schema and does not clarify the important null/default behavior. 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?

The description names a verb ('Configure') and a resource ('Rocky solver settings'), which is enough to know it mutates simulation configuration. However, 'solver settings' is vague relative to the actual parameters (duration, time_interval, processors, execution_mode) and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as rocky_run_simulation or rocky_set_domain.

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 guidance at all on when to call this tool, whether it must precede rocky_run_simulation, or whether it can be re-invoked mid-study. The agent has to infer sequencing from the sibling list alone.

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