lira_copy_stiffness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose a genuinely non-obvious behavior: 'LIRA derives areas and inertias again.' It also states the source is left as-is by the copy semantics and that a new number is returned. However, it never clarifies whether a persistent stiffness row is created, whether the source must be unattached, or what permissions/model state are required — meaningful gaps for an unannotated write.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, parameter naming convention with units, then the return/next-step note. Front-loaded and free of padding. Embedding a quoted JSON literal makes the sentence slightly harder to parse but conveys required syntax.

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 the return value explanation is a bonus rather than a requirement. Still, for a 3-parameter mutating tool with zero annotations, leaving `model` undefined and leaving the side-effect/persistence model ambiguous is a real gap an agent could trip over.

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 it largely does: it explains that only changed parameters go in `changes`, gives the allowed key names with units (B/H in cm, E in t/m2, Ro in t/m3) and an inline example, and frames `source` as the stiffness being copied. The `model` parameter is never mentioned, so it falls one step short of full coverage.

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: 'Create a stiffness as a copy of stiffness source with some parameters changed.' That is precise and distinguishes it from a plain setter. It references lira_set_stiffness only as a follow-up assignment step rather than as the alternative it must be chosen over, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 workflow is made explicit: copy an existing stiffness, override named parameters, then 'assign it with lira_set_stiffness.' An agent knows the call sequence. No exclusion is stated (e.g. when to define a stiffness from scratch rather than copy), which keeps it below a 5.

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