physics_configure_boundary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it mostly does not. It never says whether calling this overwrites an existing condition on the same selection, what permissions/state are required, whether the change is reversible, or what errors occur on an invalid boundary_condition string; the return value is only the vague 'Created boundary condition info'.

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-loaded with the one-line purpose, then structured lists that earn their space by supplying the exact boundary_condition strings an agent must pass. The bullet catalogs are longer than strictly necessary but are high-utility reference content, not 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 an unannotated, output-schema-less mutation tool, the description is adequate but incomplete: it covers arguments and the accepted condition names for three physics only, leaving flow/acoustics/PDE interfaces and the relationship between boundary_selection integers and geometry (see geometry_get_boundaries) unexplained, and gives no detail on the returned object.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description is the only parameter documentation and it does the job well: every arg is described, boundary_condition is effectively enumerated with valid strings per physics, properties includes a concrete unit-bearing example ({"T0": "293.15[K]"}), and boundary_selection is explained as boundary/edge numbers.

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+resource ('Configure a boundary condition for a physics interface') and enumerates the concrete condition types it accepts for Heat Transfer, Solid Mechanics and Electrostatics. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as physics_configure_acoustic_boundary, physics_configure_pde_boundary, or physics_setup_heat_boundaries, so an agent must infer which one is the generic path.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the reader deduces this is the generic boundary-condition setter and that the physics_name argument selects the interface. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to specialized siblings like physics_setup_heat_boundaries or physics_configure_acoustic_boundary.

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