set_support

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

Annotations already flag this as a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but provide no further context. The description adds per-DOF meaning and defaults, which is helpful, but it does not disclose whether existing supports are overwritten, how group_name is treated, or any side effects. This is a partial improvement over annotations rather than a full behavioral profile.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clean Args list. Every parameter earns its place, and the bilingual text is efficient. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description adequately covers parameter semantics but omits key operational context: whether it replaces or accumulates supports, whether group_name must already exist, and any prerequisites or return behavior. It is usable but not complete enough for an agent to anticipate all consequences.

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 carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: node_id's accepted forms (int, list, range string like '1to10'), the meaning and default for each of the six DOF flags, and group_name's purpose. This goes well beyond 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set support boundary conditions on nodes'. This clearly differentiates it from related sibling tools like add_elastic_support or add_support_settlement, and the bilingual phrasing leaves no doubt about the tool's role.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like remove_boundary, add_elastic_support, and add_support_settlement nearby, the description offers no exclusions or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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