add_master_slave_link

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the constraint semantics (slaves follow master motion) and the dof_constraints default (all constrained). It does not address side effects such as duplicate-link behavior on repeated calls (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or interaction with existing constraints on the same nodes.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the core action is the first sentence, followed by the use case and a tight Args block. The bilingual repetition roughly doubles length but serves the domain's user base, and every section earns its place given the schema's 0% coverage.

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?

Everything needed to call the tool correctly — semantics of all four parameters, defaults, and range-string syntax — is present. Remaining gaps (return/success signal, duplicate or conflict behavior) are minor for a model-construction tool, and there is no output schema whose absence would compound the issue.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all four parameters with meaning the schema cannot convey. Critical details live only here: the '2to5' range-string format for slave_node_ids, the [dx,dy,dz,rx,ry,rz] ordering of dof_constraints, what True means, and the default all-constrained behavior.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource — 'Add master-slave constraint (rigid link) between nodes' — and then explains the underlying mechanism: slave nodes follow the master node's motion. The rigid-link concept, reinforced by the diaphragm application, clearly differentiates it from sibling constraint tools like add_elastic_link, add_beam_constraint, add_constraint_equation, and set_support.

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?

States a concrete use case — rigid connections where slave nodes follow a master node, typically for diaphragm rigid zones — which gives an agent clear context for when to invoke it. However, it never explicitly names alternatives (e.g., add_elastic_link for flexible coupling) or states when not to use it, leaving comparative routing to inference.

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