add_constraint_equation

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose the core linear-relationship behavior and DOF index meanings, but it does not explain side effects, duplicate-name behavior, validation, or how the equation affects the model beyond being added.

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 content is well-organized with a summary, Args block, and example, and the key behavior is front-loaded. However, repeating every line in Chinese roughly doubles the length without adding information for an English-speaking agent.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and unhelpful annotations, the description supplies nearly all needed call semantics: parameter roles, valid value meanings, and an example. It is still slightly incomplete about when this tool should be preferred over other master/slave or constraint tools.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter, including DOF index meaning (1=Dx, 2=Dy, etc.), the nested master_info structure, and coefficient interpretation. The worked example concretizes the exact list format expected.

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 clearly identifies a specific action ('Add a constraint equation between node DOFs') with a precise mathematical definition: slave_dof = Σ(coefficient × master_dof). This distinguishes it from generic 'link' or 'support' tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similar add_master_slave_link sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like add_master_slave_link or add_bea_constraint. The example clarifies syntax but not the selection criteria or preconditions for constraint equations.

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