create_simple_beam_bridge

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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: the material must already exist, the section is auto-created as a rectangle if it does not exist, and the operation creates nodes, elements, supports, and a load case together. This adds context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing model data.

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: the main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clean Args block. The bilingual repetition adds length but serves multilingual users and each line carries semantic value. It is somewhat longer than necessary but remains organized and scannable.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, auto-creation behavior, coordinate orientation, and all parameter meanings. It does not specify the exact support placements or what the tool returns on success, but these are relatively minor gaps given the level of detail already provided.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: span in meters, num_elements with minimum 2, material/section existence requirements, section width/height for auto-creating a rectangular section, and the self-weight case name. This is essential because the schema itself provides no descriptive text for any parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'create' a 'simple beam bridge model', and enumerates exactly what is produced: nodes, beam elements, supports, and a self-weight load case. It also states the bridge lies along the X-axis, which distinguishes it from generic or continuous bridge creation tools.

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 implies when to use this tool by emphasizing 'one-step creation' and listing all included components, which suggests it is for quick high-level bridge modeling rather than step-by-step setup. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as create_continuous_beam_bridge or lower-level create_nodes/create_beam_elements_linear, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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