add_elastic_link

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

Since annotations are all false and provide no hints, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It compensates well by detailing per-link-type constraints such as stiffness_values being only for type=1 and kx only for type=3/4, and gives concrete examples. It does not mention what happens if referenced nodes do not exist or whether an existing link is replaced, but the core behavioral constraints are covered.

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 bilingual and lengthy, but well-structured with an Args list and Example section. Every sentence carries semantic value, and the conditional parameter notes are front-loaded within the parameter list. It could be slightly tighter in wording, but nothing is filler.

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 tool with ten parameters, no output schema, and no enums, the description covers all parameter semantics and gives two realistic examples, making it highly usable for an agent. It omits any description of the return value or side-effect behavior such as whether the operation overwrites existing links, but the input-side information is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by documenting all ten parameters, including types, allowable values for link_type, the six-component stiffness array, units for beta_angle, and conditional 'ONLY for' usage. This is more than the schema provides and is essential for correct invocation.

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 states the tool adds an elastic link between two nodes and models connections like bearings, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from support-style tools by the 'between two nodes' phrasing, but it does not explicitly contrast with similar link tools such as add_master_slave_link.

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 implies when to use the tool by explaining that elastic links model connections like bearings between members, and the examples show typical calls. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than direct.

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