physics_configure_pde_boundary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: unknown condition types are passed through, and property-setting errors are surfaced rather than swallowed. It does not say whether this overwrites existing conditions, whether the physics interface must already exist, or what permissions/state are required for a mutation tool.

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 purpose, then each following sentence adds a distinct fact (types, passthrough, selection binding, error behavior) with no filler. Slightly dense as a single paragraph where a short list of the parameter-bearing sentences would read better.

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, zero-schema-coverage, zero-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the description is helpful but incomplete. It omits the roles of most parameters and the preconditions/overwrite semantics an agent needs before invoking it.

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 it does add real meaning for two key parameters: boundary_condition (common types plus passthrough) and selection_name (binds to a named geometric selection instead of entity numbers). But it leaves physics_name, model_name, properties, boundary_dimension, and boundary_selection completely unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 (Configure) and resource (a PDE boundary condition) with a scoping qualifier ('one') that separates it from batch siblings like physics_setup_pde_boundaries. It also names the PDE forms (Coefficient, General, Weak Form) and common condition types, letting an agent distinguish it from physics_configure_acoustic_boundary without opening any schema.

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 context is implied rather than stated: 'one' boundary condition and the enumerated types suggest single-condition configuration, and it advises using selection_name over entity numbers. However, it never says when to prefer this over physics_setup_pde_boundaries, physics_configure_boundary, or physics_get_pde_boundary_conditions, nor any prerequisite (e.g. an existing PDE physics node).

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