rsap_add_bars

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It merely states the action without disclosing prerequisites (e.g., nodes must exist), auto-numbering behavior, error handling, or side effects on the project. No behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, consisting of one sentence plus a brief Args block. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose, and there is no wasted content. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool is a mutation with a nested array parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits critical contextual details like the requirement that start_node and end_node must already exist, how auto-numbering works, and what happens if invalid specs are provided. The description needs more depth to be complete.

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 description lists 'bars: List of {start_node, end_node, number?, section?, material?} specs.' which is a compact summary of the schema's BarSpec fields. However, the schema already provides detailed descriptions for each property (e.g., 'auto if omitted', 'existing section label'), so the description adds little meaning beyond a shorthand. It does not compensate for the 0% coverage of the top-level 'bars' parameter itself.

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 'Create many bars at once' with a specific verb (create) and resource (bars) and scope (many at once). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'rsap_add_bar' which likely handles single bars. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'many bars at once' implies this tool is for batch creation, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name the singular alternative (rsap_add_bar) or state any exclusions, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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