lira_add_elements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: elements are appended after the last element (ordering), the call returns element numbers, and omitting stiffness produces unstiffened elements that break the analysis. Remaining gaps are the role of the 'model' parameter (active model vs named) and error behavior.

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 purpose sentence, then per-parameter notes — every sentence carries information, no filler. Slightly fragmented formatting, but nothing is wasted.

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-value explanation isn't needed, and the description still flags that element numbers come back. For a 4-parameter mutation tool it covers the risky parts well; the unaddressed 'model' parameter is the only substantive omission.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: 'nodes' shape is shown by example ([[1,2],[2,3]] for bars), 'fe_type' codes are enumerated with a pointer to lira://reference/tables, and 'stiffness' gets both provenance and a failure warning. Only 'model' is left undocumented.

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 — add elements of one FE type after the last element — and notes the return value (element numbers). That clearly separates it from lira_add_nodes (nodes, not elements), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 by the prerequisite note that stiffness must come from lira_model_summary or the analysis will fail, which is real guidance. But there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus lira_set_stiffness, lira_copy_stiffness, or lira_add_nodes, and no exclusions.

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