add_check_load_combination

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

Annotations are all false and offer no behavioral hints, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'Add' and details parameters; it does not disclose side effects, whether duplicate names are rejected, whether load_case_factors must reference existing load cases, or any mutation/validation behavior. This is a significant gap for a state-changing 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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then organized as a clear Args list. Every parameter entry is informative, bilingual, and non-redundant; no sentence is wasted despite the length.

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 parameter construction, the description is essentially complete given all enum values and formats are included. However, it omits behavioral context such as prerequisites, error conditions, and whether omitted load_case_factors is acceptable, which an agent would benefit from when invoking this mutating tool.

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%, but the description thoroughly compensates by explaining every parameter: name, standard with its numeric codes, kind with full per-standard enum mappings, load_case_factors with an example format, and combine_method. This goes well beyond the bare schema and gives an agent everything needed to construct valid arguments.

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 and resource: 'Add a load combination for structural checking' (添加检算荷载组合), which clearly states what the tool does. The phrase 'for structural checking' distinguishes it from the sibling add_load_combine, which likely targets general load combinations.

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 description provides clear context: this tool is for adding load combinations used in structural checking, and it specifies the relevant code standards (JTG D60-2015, TB 2017). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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