Moving and transversal traffic / 移动与横向活载

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: full-definition updates reset omitted scalar fields, system switching clears definitions only with explicit clear_existing=true, writes refresh the model without running analysis, API availability depends on the desktop build, and actual IDs must be read back before activation. Units are also flagged as standard-specific rather than blanket-convertible.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then routing, then caveats, so the important content comes first. It is long but justified by a 14-branch tool; the main waste is the duplicated Chinese parenthetical restating each English clause and a slightly list-like middle paragraph.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the cross-cutting concerns an umbrella tool must: system selection prerequisite, per-standard units, definition-replacement semantics, clear_existing behavior, and the define-then-stage-then-solve workflow. Per-operation detail is correctly delegated to the nested schemas, though the breadth of 14 operations means the top-level text cannot address each one.

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 100% and the single 'request' parameter is a discriminated union whose branch schemas already document every field, so the baseline is 3. The description's note that 'request.operation selects the family's exact schema' and that typed requests 'stay nested' largely restates the discriminator already declared in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Configure the live-load system and define moving, transversal or international vehicles, lanes and cases'), then enumerates the operation families it owns (node tandem, influence plane, lane, vehicle, cases) so an agent can tell it apart from edit_loads, query_model and edit_construction 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?

Explicit routing is provided both inside the tool ('set_transversal_vehicle/lane/case define the transverse family'; 'remove_transversal_data removes an explicit transverse target') and to siblings with conditions ('Use edit_loads for static loads, query_model for saved definitions, edit_construction to include cases in the operation stage and query_results for solved envelopes'). 'Select the matching system explicitly' states the prerequisite for the whole tool.

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