rsap_add_bar

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 discloses prerequisites (nodes must exist, section/material must be defined) and one behavior (number auto-assigned). It does not mention what happens on failure, error handling, or any side effects beyond creation, which leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 then lists parameters with concise explanations. It avoids redundancy, though the arg list mirrors the schema's properties; however, the added semantic detail justifies each element. Tight and well-organized.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main inputs and prerequisites but omits differentiation from the plural tool rsap_add_bars, potential error cases, and any return/output behavior. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete for an agent deciding between similar tools.

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 fully compensates by providing meaningful semantics for every parameter: start/end node roles, number auto-assignment, and references to define tools for section/material. This goes well beyond the schema's bare type/title information.

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 the tool's function: 'Create a bar (beam/column) between two existing nodes' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like rsap_add_bars by emphasizing a single bar, and clarifies that section/material assignment is optional.

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 implies usage context: 'between two existing nodes' and references rsap_define_section/rsap_define_material for required definitions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of the plural sibling rsap_add_bars, nor does it give exclusions or alternative conditions.

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