cst_set_boundary_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it falls short: it never states the legal boundary-condition values, whether the defaults ('expanded open') can be overridden per side, whether changes are destructive/reversible, or whether an open CST project is required. Only the count ('six domain sides') is disclosed.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource. It is concise, though at the cost of the detail the other dimensions need.

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 for a 7-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. An agent lacks the legal value set and prerequisites needed to call it correctly.

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 seven parameters, and the description adds nothing about 'all' (a string-or-null override) or the per-side x/y/z max/min arguments. Cryptic default values like 'expanded open' are never explained, so the agent cannot know what strings are valid.

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 ('Set') and resource ('boundary conditions on the six domain sides'), which is reasonably precise and clearly distinguishes this from unrelated siblings like cst_create_brick_tool. However, it does not differentiate from nearby configuration siblings such as cst_set_mesh_tool or cst_set_symmetry_tool, so the agent must infer the boundary-condition niche on its own.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the other set_* configuration tools, no prerequisites (e.g. an open project), and no mention of ordering relative to solver setup. The agent gets no context for selection beyond the tool name.

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