add_tendon_3d

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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states a mutation ('Add') and adds one useful precondition ('property_name must exist'), but it does not explain side effects, duplicate-name behavior, return values, or whether the tendon is immediately usable. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a one-sentence summary followed by a tight Args block, with each parameter on one line and bilingual glosses. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool.

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 geometry-creation tool with nested arrays and no output schema, the description covers inputs thoroughly but omits interaction details (e.g., how line_type relates to position_type), coordinate units, minimum control-point count, and error behavior. It enables a basic call but leaves edge cases ambiguous.

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, and it does. It provides explicit formats for control_points ([x, y, z, r]), explains point_insert, and gives numeric codes for line_type and position_type. All parameters receive at least a gloss, though units and array-length constraints are not specified.

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 and resource: 'Add a 3D tendon' (添加三维钢束/空间钢束). The 3D qualifier clearly distinguishes it from sibling create_tendon_2d. An agent can immediately identify what the tool does without reading the schema.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_tendon_2d or assign_tendon_elements. The only usage-related hint is the prerequisite that property_name must already exist, which addresses ordering but not tool selection. This falls short of explicit usage guidance.

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