create_live_load_case

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It discloses that the tool creates a case and that the engine performs an envelope analysis by finding worst-case vehicle positions, going beyond what annotations provide. It lacks details on overwrite or precondition failures, but the main behavior is transparent.

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 with a clear opening statement, workflow context, an Args section, and an example. Bilingual content adds some redundancy but is purposeful given the domain. It is longer than minimal but every section contributes to correct invocation.

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 absence of an output schema and the low schema coverage, the description provides a complete enough picture: what the tool does, what arguments to pass, and how to structure sub_cases. It identifies the workflow position but does not explicitly enumerate prerequisites such as requiring an existing influence plane and lane definitions, though these are implied by 'FINAL STEP' and visible among sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% schema coverage), but the description fully compensates with an Args block explaining each parameter, including units for span and the exact nested structure of sub_cases. The concrete example demonstrates how to combine all parameters correctly, which is especially valuable for the complex sub_cases argument.

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 creates a moving live load case and identifies it as the final step of the moving load workflow. It also explains the core purpose: the analysis engine computes worst-case vehicle positions for envelope results. This distinguishes it from generic create_load_case and other workflow siblings.

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 explicitly frames the tool as the FINAL STEP of the moving load workflow, giving clear sequencing context: influence plane, lanes, and vehicles should already exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the workflow positioning is a strong usage signal.

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