physics_add_acoustics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses default behavior for every argument (tag generated from type, all domains, first component/geometry/current model), which is genuinely useful. It does not describe side effects on the model, error behavior for unrecognized physics types, or what the returned 'Created physics info' contains beyond a generic phrase.

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-loads the action in one sentence with no waste, then adds the version-specific hint and a clean Args/Returns block. Given zero schema coverage, the enumerated parameters are earning their place rather than padding.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the callable inputs and defaults thoroughly and notes a return value exists. The main gap is that the 'Created physics info' return and the consequences on the model are not elaborated, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and the Args block documents all six parameters including defaults and the meaning of domain_selection ('Domain numbers'). It adds real meaning beyond bare property names, though it doesn't specify formats expected for tags or names.

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 ('Add a geometry-based Acoustics Module physics interface') and clarifies its distinguishing scope: it accepts any COMSSOL acoustic physics type rather than a fixed list, unlike the narrower sibling physics_add_pressure_acoustics. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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 gives context on how to pick a value ('Use the exact COMSOL physics type for the installed version', with confirmed 6.3 examples), which implies usage. However it never states when to prefer this generic tool over physics_add_pressure_acoustics or physics_add_laminar_flow, nor any prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

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