add_standard_vehicle

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: loads come from a design code database, load_type must match the QiaoTong UI exactly, and standard_code maps to specific design codes. It does not fully describe side effects or return values, but it gives enough behavioral grounding for safe invocation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the workflow step and then a clean Args block. It is somewhat lengthy due to bilingual content and per-parameter annotations, but each piece adds necessary domain information.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: the operation, workflow position, all parameter semantics, and UI-matching requirements. It does not mention prerequisites such as an active model or what happens on duplicate names, but the provided context is sufficient for most agent calls.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains all five parameters, provides the complete 1-7 standard_code mapping, gives concrete load_type examples, and clarifies the special meanings of load_length (0 = unlimited) and factor. This is exactly what an agent needs 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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Add a standard vehicle load from a design code database' and labels it as 'STEP 4 of the moving load workflow.' This is specific enough to understand the tool's role, though it does not directly contrast with nearby siblings like add_node_tandem or create_live_load_case.

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 'STEP 4 of the moving load workflow' phrase provides clear workflow context for when this tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow placement gives an agent reasonable guidance on sequencing.

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