physics_add_pressure_acoustics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It says it adds physics, but doesn't disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if physics already exists, whether it requires an active model connection, or what permissions are needed. The 'Returns' line is minimal and no output schema exists, so the description should say more about the result.

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 purpose, then structured as Args and Returns. It's concise with no wasted sentences, though the Returns section is very terse and could be integrated more tightly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (side effects, required state, error conditions) and doesn't clarify how it differs from sibling acoustics tools. An agent would need external guidance to use it safely.

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. It documents all five parameters with defaults and brief meanings, which is helpful, but the schema already contains titles and defaults for each. The description adds marginal value by explaining 'domain numbers' and 'first component' semantics, but doesn't explain format expectations like domain numbering or tag conventions beyond defaults.

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: 'Add Pressure Acoustics physics for frequency-domain acoustic analysis.' It clearly indicates the COMSOL physics interface being created. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling 'physics_add_acoustics' or 'physics_get_acoustic_boundary_conditions', leaving ambiguity about which add-physics tool to use for acoustics.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like physics_add_acoustics or the generic physics_add. No prerequisites, no notes about required model state, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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