add_beam_constraint

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

The description explains the meaning of True/False values and the DOF order [dx, dy, dz, rx, ry, rz], which goes beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose whether existing releases are overwritten, what null defaults for release_i/release_j mean behaviorally, or any side effects on the boundary group. Annotations are all default-false, so the description carries the transparency burden but only partially fulfills it.

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?

The description is well-structured with a purpose statement, semantic bullets, args, and example, and it front-loads the core purpose. It is somewhat verbose due to full bilingual repetition of most content, but every section adds value and the structure helps an agent parse it quickly.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter meanings, and an example. However, it omits the behavior when release_i/release_j are null (the schema defaults), and it does not state that each release array must contain exactly six booleans. These gaps could lead to incorrect invocations, so it is not fully complete.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. The Args section clearly documents all four parameters, explains the array structure of release_i and release_j with True=release semantics, and provides a concrete example showing how to release My at the I-end. This is exemplary parameter documentation given a bare schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Set beam end releases / constraints' and immediately clarifies it controls DOF releases at each beam end. This distinguishes it from generic constraint tools like add_constraint_equation or set_support, and the True/False semantics remove ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It provides clear usage context with 'Common use: releasing rotation at one end to create a pin connection' and implies beam-element-specific application. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5 but gives an agent enough context to select it appropriately.

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