add_result

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses important behavior: properties are applied in order, and failure of a property or scope removes the new object unless keep_partial=true. It does not mention connection prerequisites or broader model side effects, but the rollback semantics are valuable and non-obvious.

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 front-loaded with the core action and keeps the kind enumeration where it adds necessary value. The trailing 'Args:' list is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be trimmed, but overall it is dense rather than bloated.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits prerequisites and the meaning/format of properties_json and analysis_index, leaving gaps an agent may need to resolve.

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 carry parameter meaning. It usefully enumerates kind values and explains keep_partial behavior, but leaves named_selection, properties_json, and analysis_index largely undefined beyond listing their names.

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: 'Add a result object under Solution.' It enumerates the supported result kinds and explicitly differentiates the d3max/d3part case by pointing to set_analysis_settings.

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?

It gives clear context for adding a result object and explicitly routes d3max/d3part usage to set_analysis_settings. It does not broadly compare against siblings such as list_addable_objects or explain when adding a result is inappropriate beyond that special case.

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