Add cross-section

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the unit convention [m] and axis orientation, which is helpful. However, it does not mention whether the tool creates a new section, updates existing ones, or any side effects like overwriting. Basic behavioral context is missing.

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 concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the action, then lists shapes and conventions efficiently. Every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and the tool's complexity (multiple shape types with varying parameters), the description covers the input well but fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., confirmation, ID). Missing return value info and no guidance on the 'name' and 'model' parameters, though they are standard.

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 only 25% (only 'params' has a minimal description). The description compensates fully by listing each shape with its required parameters in a clear format, specifying units, and explaining the convention for b, h, Iy, Iz. This adds significant meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states 'Add a cross-section' as the verb+resource, and lists all valid shapes with required parameters, making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools which deal with loads, materials, members, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. However, the sibling tools are all distinct (add_loads, add_members, etc.), so the context implies its use case. Lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

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