physics_boundary_selection

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails to. It does not say whether applying a condition overwrites existing boundary settings, whether a model must be loaded/current first, whether it is destructive or idempotent, or how errors are surfaced; 'Returns: Configuration confirmation' is the only behavioral statement and is thin.

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?

Well front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then numbered usage and grouped examples. It is somewhat long, but the per-physics property tables earn their space because those keys are otherwise undiscoverable. Minimal filler.

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 generic, unannotated mutation tool with no output schema and five parameters, the parameter and property-key coverage is good, but the description omits the two things an agent most needs: how this generic tool relates to the specific boundary siblings, and its side effects on existing boundary selections.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents all five parameters (physics_name, boundary_condition_type, boundary_numbers, properties, model_name) and, critically, names the concrete property keys per boundary type (T0, q0, h/Text, U0, p0, Fx/Fy/Fz), which the bare 'additionalProperties: true' schema cannot convey.

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 ('configure any boundary condition') and frames itself as the generic boundary-setup tool, which is a meaningful claim of scope. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many similar siblings (physics_configure_boundary, physics_setup_flow_boundaries, physics_setup_heat_boundaries, physics_setup_pde_boundaries, physics_configure_acoustic_boundary), so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of these 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?

It gives a concrete 'use this tool by specifying 1-4' recipe and enumerates BC types per physics module, which is implied guidance on how to use it. But there is no when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance and no exclusions, despite a crowded sibling set of boundary-configuration tools.

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