Supports, links and constraints / 支承连接与约束

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description reinforces this beyond the annotation alone: writes can overwrite supports/releases, remove constraints and change stability, there is no backup/undo/auto-solve, and the response is a confirmation rather than a verified saved definition. The most valuable addition is the warning that the same boolean means fix/couple/release in different branches, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Well front-loaded (purpose, then operation-selection routing, then semantic caveats, then write-safety warnings) and every paragraph carries distinct information. It is longer than average but the length is justified by the seven-branch discriminated union; only the embedded Chinese translations add some redundancy.

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 complex multi-branch mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers operation selection, permission/existence prerequisites, boolean cross-branch semantics, overwrite behavior, readback guidance before analyze_model, and retry caution. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine cross-branch semantics the schema cannot: the identical boolean flag has three different mechanical meanings depending on the selected operation, and extra_parameters is enabled by default when supplied while extra_enabled=False clears it. This meaning-per-branch guidance materially aids correct invocation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Edit mechanical boundary conditions on existing nodes and frame elements') and then enumerates the seven sub-operations by physical relationship (node-to-ground, node-to-node, frame end, weighted DOF). An agent can distinguish it from edit_geometry, edit_construction, and query_model without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes each case: node-to-ground uses set_support/add_elastic_support, node-to-node uses add_elastic_link/add_master_slave_link, and it names edit_construction and edit_geometry as the alternatives for their own concerns plus query_model for ID resolution. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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