cst_configure_eigenmode_solver_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the configuration persists to the project, whether it overwrites a previously selected solver type, whether there are auth/connection requirements, or what happens to unspecified parameters. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical efficiently enumerates the key settings. It is under-specified rather than verbose, so the economy is only slightly marred by the omitted parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations, 0% schema coverage on 5 params, and no usage context, the definition leaves an agent without enough to call the tool confidently. It should at least characterize method, accuracy, and mesh_type.

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 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains only n_modes and frequency; method, accuracy, and mesh_type are left undocumented in both the schema and the description, including the meaning of 'method' or acceptable mesh type values.

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 ('the eigenmode solver'), which clearly separates it from the sibling configure_fd_solver and configure_td_solver tools. It also names two of the configurable settings, so the agent knows what kind of solver this targets.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (does a project need to be open? does a solver run need to follow?), and no explicit routing relative to the FD/TD solver configurators or set_solver. The parenthetical settings hint at use but do not guide selection.

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