add_node_tandem

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false), so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose that order_by_x auto-sorts nodes by X coordinate, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., whether repeated calls create duplicates), error conditions, or any consistency guarantees. No contradictions with annotations, but the description leaves behavioral gaps.

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 structured with a purpose statement, workflow context, and parameter list. It includes bilingual text which doubles length but appears intentional for the user base. The core information is front-loaded and no redundant fluff, though the translations add some verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description covers purpose, workflow placement, and parameter semantics effectively. It could add prerequisites (e.g., nodes must exist) or error handling, but for a step-1 tool in a defined workflow, the context is largely sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains all three parameters: name (tandem name), node_ids (node list or range string like '1to101'), and order_by_x (auto-sort behavior). This goes well beyond the schema's type-only definitions, providing critical usage details like format and default 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?

The description clearly states the tool defines a node tandem—the node path a moving load travels along—and explicitly labels it as STEP 1 of a moving load workflow. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like add_influence_plane or create_live_load_case through its step sequencing.

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 provides explicit workflow context: 'This is STEP 1 of the moving load workflow' followed by the ordered steps. This tells agents when to invoke it (when starting a moving load setup). It does not enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the stepwise sequence gives clear usage direction.

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