configure_analysis

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, so the description need not restate that it changes model state. It adds context about which settings are configured, but does not disclose whether repeated calls overwrite prior settings or how these settings affect subsequent analysis runs.

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-organized as a compact parameter list with bilingual explanations and no filler. Every line adds meaning, and the summary line is front-loaded.

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?

All five parameters are fully explained, and there is no output schema requiring return-value documentation. The description is incomplete only in that it does not state how this configuration relates to run_analysis or whether settings persist across 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 carries full responsibility for parameter semantics. It explains every parameter, provides Chinese translations, and gives explicit value mappings for solver_type (0=sparse matrix, 1=variable bandwidth), which the schema does not provide.

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 configures analysis settings and enumerates the specific settings it controls (construction stage, creep, vibration, solver type). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related sibling configure_check_analysis or state how it relates to run_analysis.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be called before run_analysis, nor does it contrast with configure_check_analysis or other analysis-related tools.

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