add_elastic_support

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

Annotations provide no positive hints, so description carries the burder. It discloses the mutation ('Add'), explains how spring_values are interpreted differently for each support_type, and includes units and direction mappings. It does not state whether repeated calls overwrite or merge with existing springs or what side effects boundary-group creation has, preventing a 5.

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?

Well-structured with a concise summary, Args section, and Example section, front-loading the purpose. The bilingual repetitions add length but are purposeful for this domain and every line carries meaning; slightly redundant but not padded.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers purpose, all parameters, type-specific formats, units, and usage examples. Minor gaps remain, such as exact range-string syntax and whether an existing elastic support at the same node is replaced or accumulated.

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%, and the description fully compensates: every parameter is explained, including node_id's allowed forms (int, list, range string), the type-dependent shape of spring_values, direction codes, and support_type meanings. Examples demonstrate valid argument combinations.

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?

States a specific verb and resource, 'Add elastic spring supports on nodes', and clarifies real-world modeling intent (foundation flexibility, pile caps, rubber bearings). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like add_elastic_link or set_support, which concern different structural entities.

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?

Gives concrete use cases (foundation flexibility, pile caps, rubber bearings) and worked examples showing when to use type=1 vs type=3. Does not explicitly warn against using set_support or add_elastic_link instead, so it lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is strong.

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