Add supports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states 'Add supports' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether supports replace existing ones, if the tool is destructive, or any required permissions. The mutation aspect is implied but not detailed.

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 two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It provides essential details about the type parameter without wasting words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 no annotation support, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain return values, preconditions (e.g., nodes must exist), or postconditions. The tool modifies the structure, but the description omits many contextual details.

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 0%, but the description explains the 'type' parameter with examples and meanings (fixed, pinned, roller-yz, planar-xz, or binary string). However, it does not explain the 'model' or 'node' parameters, which are left to the schema with no additional context.

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 supports at nodes' which specifies the verb and resource. It explains the type parameter with examples, distinguishing from sibling tools like add_loads or add_members. However, it could be more explicit about the specific structural context.

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 description gives usage examples for the type parameter but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_loads). It does not specify prerequisites like node existence or when not to use it.

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