add_traffic_lane

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

Annotations provide only false hints, so the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It adds useful information about prerequisites and workflow position, but does not describe side effects, failure behavior, or whether existing lanes with the same name are replaced. This is adequate but not rich.

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: a one-sentence purpose, a workflow-position sentence, and a compact parameter list with relevant details. Every line adds value, and the most important context (purpose and prerequisites) appears before the parameter details.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow step, dependencies, all parameter semantics, and typical usage values. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and understand where it fits in the moving load analysis workflow.

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?

Despite the input schema having 0% parameter descriptions, the tool description thoroughly documents all seven parameters: names, Chinese translations, units, examples, typical values for lane_width, and explicit meanings for optimize and direction. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Define a traffic lane line for moving load analysis.' It also explicitly identifies itself as 'STEP 3 of the moving load workflow,' distinguishing this tool from related siblings like add_influence_plane, add_node_tandem, and add_standard_vehicle.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('STEP 3 of the moving load workflow') and the required prerequisites: 'Requires an influence plane and a node tandem created beforehand.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the workflow placement and prerequisites give clear contextual guidance.

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