add_influence_plane

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

Annotations provide no effective safety signals (all false), so the description carries the burden. It explains that the influence plane is built from node tandems and is a prerequisite for lanes/load cases, but it does not disclose duplicate-name behavior, validation failures, or other side effects. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose and workflow step. Only minor redundancy exists, such as mentioning node tandems in both the first sentence and the explanation sentence, but the overall structure is clear and free of unnecessary 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it requires, and where it fits in the workflow. It could be improved by explicitly pointing to add_node_tandem as the source of tandem names or noting duplicate-name behavior, but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, but the description's Args section compensates by defining both parameters, giving a Chinese equivalent and example for name, and stating that tandem_names are node tandem names. It also notes 'one or more' node tandems, adding cardinality information beyond the raw schema.

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+resource statement, 'Define an influence plane from node tandems,' which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_node_tandem or add_traffic_lane. The added workflow context ('STEP 2 of the moving load workflow') further clarifies its unique role.

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 gives clear usage context: it is 'STEP 2 of the moving load workflow', depends on 'one or more node tandems', and is 'required by lanes and load cases'. This implies when to call it relative to other tools, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative.

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