Groups and construction schedules / 分组与施工阶段

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=false, but the description adds substantial non-redundant behavior: writes 'refresh the model, with no solve or automatic schedule rollback', group removal leaves model entities intact, and that a missing optional list differs from an explicit empty list. These are mutation-safety facts an agent cannot derive from the annotation hints alone, so it exceeds the lowered bar for annotated tools.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by operation inventory, routing guidance, and semantics, with no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly prose-heavy for a 14-branch dispatch tool, but each clause carries routing or behavior information. A bulleted per-operation list would scan faster, which is the only reason it falls short of 5.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary and the description does not waste space on it. For a 14-operation destructive dispatch tool it covers the prerequisites (referenced definitions must already exist), the empty-vs-missing trap, non-rollback, no-solve, and read-before/after practice. Nothing an agent needs to invoke a branch 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% and the per-operation branch schemas are themselves richly documented, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds cross-cutting semantics the schema does not state at the dispatch level: three separate group namespaces with exact-name references, empty-list vs omitted-list divergence, and the requirement that configure_operation_stage receive all four case-family lists with [] as an explicit disable.

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 domain verb ('Manage') over concrete resources (structure/boundary/load groups plus construction/operation-stage schedules) and names the activation/deactivation scope explicitly. It routes away from siblings by name ('Use edit_loads for physical loads and view_model for stage display only'), so an agent can distinguish it from edit_loads, edit_boundaries and view_model without opening the schema. The clause enumerating the constituent operations makes the dispatch surface unambiguous.

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?

Explicit alternatives with conditions are given: edit_loads for physical loads, view_model for stage display only, and query_model for reading groups/stages 'before and after changing an existing schedule'. It also supplies a read-before-write workflow and distinguishes remove-a-group from deactivate-a-group and remove-a-stage from deactivate-in-a-stage. Nothing about when to reach for this tool is left to inference.

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