cst_set_symmetry_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at a performance effect (halving solve time) but does not state the accepted symmetry values, whether existing symmetry is overwritten, what happens if the geometry is not symmetric, or any permission/setup requirements 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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than purely concise.

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 zero-annotation mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage the description omits the two things an agent most needs: the allowed symmetry values per axis and the conditions under which symmetry is valid. The one-sentence description is not complete enough 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% and the three parameters (x, y, z) have only a 'none' default with no enum or description. The description's phrase 'electric/magnetic symmetry planes' gestures at possible values but never maps them to the x/y/z parameters, leaving the agent to guess the accepted strings.

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 and resource ('Set electric/magnetic symmetry planes') that is distinct from sibling set_* tools like cst_set_boundary or cst_set_mesh. However, it gives no indication of which plane or what values are involved, so the agent must open the schema to act. Clear but without sibling differentiation beyond the resource noun.

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?

The only contextual note is '(halves the solve time)', which is a motivation for the feature, not guidance on when to invoke the tool. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a loaded project, a solved setup) and no reference to alternatives or when not to use it.

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