add_check_stirrup

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

Annotations already carry the basic write-operation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false), and the description adds useful conditional behavior: limbs_number is for normal stirrups, loops_number and core_diameter are for spiral stirrups, with units clarified. It does not disclose duplicate-ID behavior or other side effects, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact structured parameter list. Each parameter line carries useful information, and the bilingual labels are non-redundant in a mixed-language context.

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?

With 9 parameters, no enums, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description supplies enough to invoke the tool correctly: all argument semantics, units, defaults context, and type-specific usage. It could be slightly richer by stating the return/result of the call or duplicate-ID behavior, but these are not blocking for a creation 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?

Even though the input schema has 0% description coverage, the Args block documents all 9 parameters with meanings, units (meters), and the 1=normal/2=spiral type mapping. It also explains which parameters apply to which stirrup type, adding semantic value far beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 stirrup definition for checking', so an agent knows exactly what action is performed. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like manage_check_stirrup or assign_element_stirrup, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'for checking' gives clear context that this tool creates a stirrup definition used in check/verification workflows. It does not mention when to prefer manage_check_stirrup or assign_element_stirrup, so exclusions/alternatives are absent.

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