opendss_add_element

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds real behavior beyond them: it refuses to overwrite an existing element, verifies OpenDSS actually created it, reads properties back, and re-solves by default. That is substantive mutation-context disclosure, though permission requirements and failure modes are not spelled out.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then the sibling comparison, then a short Args/Returns block — no filler. The Args line largely restates the schema field names, which is the one mildly wasted sentence.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description still summarizes them briefly. Naming conventions, overwrite refusal, creation verification, and re-solve behavior are all covered; only explicit permission/error behavior is missing.

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?

The Args line enumerates the wrapper fields (element_class, name, properties, solve), which is mostly redundant with the schema, but 'Use element_class + name, not Class.Name in name' and the sample properties dict add phrasing/format semantics an agent cannot recover from the schema alone. With reported 0% top-level description coverage this compensates meaningfully, though it does not document each property individually.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new element ... from a properties dict and re-solve') and names concrete element classes plus the sibling it replaces ('Typed alternative to opendss_run_command("New ...")'). An agent can distinguish it from opendss_run_command and the read-only siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly positions itself against opendss_run_command and gives a concrete condition ('typed alternative', 'use element_class + name, not Class.Name'), plus the refusal behavior implies existing elements are out of scope. It never explicitly names opendss_edit_element as the alternative for existing elements, so the when-not routing is only implied.

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