create_nodes

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

Annotations are all false and provide little behavioral guidance, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses useful behaviors: intersected splits elements at intersections, is_merged merges duplicate nodes, merge_error sets tolerance, and numbering follows start_id. It does not mention return values or repeated-call semantics, which prevents a 5.

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 front-loaded with purpose and the alternative tool before detailing parameters. Each line in the Args block adds needed information; the bilingual notes add minor redundancy but are not excessive. It is well-structured and efficient.

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?

The tool has six parameters and no output schema, and the description covers parameter semantics and the main sibling. However, it never states what the tool returns, whether creation is additive to existing nodes, or how errors/conflicts are handled. These gaps matter for a mutation tool, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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. It documents all six parameters with formats, defaults, and meanings: node_data format as [[x,y,z],...] or [[id,x,y,z],...], merge_error default 1e-3, numbering_type strategy, start_id, intersected, and is_merged. This fully compensates for the bare 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create nodes in the bridge model from an explicit coordinate list.' It also names the key sibling, create_nodes_linear, as the alternative for evenly spaced nodes, allowing an agent to distinguish them without reading schemas.

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?

It explicitly instructs: 'Prefer create_nodes_linear when nodes are evenly spaced along a line — it is far more concise for typical bridge models.' This is a clear when-to-use/alternative rule. It implies create_nodes is for explicit coordinate lists, which is exactly the scope.

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