physics_configure_acoustic_boundary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful behavioral traits: unknown types pass through to other interfaces/versions, and property-setting errors are surfaced rather than swallowed. However, it says nothing about whether the operation is destructive, whether it requires a loaded/active model, or how it interacts with existing boundaries.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence, and the type list and pass-through/error notes follow compactly. There is minimal waste, though the list could have been tied explicitly to the boundary_condition argument.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It covers only the condition-type vocabulary and error behavior, leaving the required physics_name, the selection parameters, and the properties payload undocumented, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only effectively documents the boundary_condition parameter via the enumerated common types; physics_name, model_name, selection_name, boundary_dimension, boundary_selection, and the properties object are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Configure one Pressure Acoustics boundary condition'), which is more precise than the generic sibling physics_configure_boundary. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from physics_setup_acoustic_boundaries or physics_configure_boundary, but the resource scoping is clear enough to route an agent.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite several close siblings (physics_configure_boundary, physics_setup_acoustic_boundaries, physics_get_acoustic_boundary_conditions). Usage is only implied by the resource name.

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