update_vertical_steel_tendon

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

Annotations provide no effective behavioral disclosure since readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint are all false. The description only says 'update', but does not explain side effects, whether it modifies the current tendon or creates one, how unspecified defaulted parameters are handled, or what happens if called repeatedly. For a mutating tool without meaningful annotations, the description carries a heavy burden and does not meet it.

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 organized: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. The bilingual repetition adds some redundancy, but it serves a real audience and does not make the description unwieldy.

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?

All five parameter semantics are covered, and the purpose is clear, which makes the tool minimally invocable. However, the description does not explain which tendon is affected, whether the update applies globally or to a selection, what happens when optional parameters are omitted, or what the expected result is. Given no output schema and no useful annotations, these gaps leave the tool less than fully complete.

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 must fully document parameters, and it does. Every parameter is explained with units and practical examples: area in m² with the 0.000804 = 804mm² equivalence, effective_prestress in Pa with 8e8 = 800MPa, and fpd as design tensile strength. This adds substantial meaning that the raw schema completely lacks.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update vertical prestress tendon parameters for checking'. It clearly identifies the operation as a parameter update on vertical prestress tendons, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_tendon_2d, add_tendon_3d, apply_prestress, and update_section_property. The bilingual text reinforces the intended meaning without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'for checking' implies this tool belongs to a prestress checking workflow, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of related tools like create_tendon_property or apply_prestress, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an existing vertical tendon or a loaded model. The context is implied at best.

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