rsap_add_combination

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses auto-assignment of the combination number and the meaning of combo_type, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing load cases) or potential side effects such as overwriting existing combinations or error behavior. This is a moderate level of disclosure for a creation 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args list with examples. Every line adds value, and the formatting enhances scannability without wordiness.

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 description covers all five parameters and key behaviors, with examples that illustrate real use. However, it omits any mention of return values or error conditions, and does not explicitly note that existing load cases must be present, which would be useful given the absence of an output schema and annotations.

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 schema has 0% coverage for top-level parameters, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter, providing concrete examples for name and factors, specifying allowed values for combo_type, and clarifying default behavior for nature and number. This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'Create a load combination from weighted load cases'—which clearly states the tool's function. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rsap_add_load_case, which creates individual load cases, whereas this tool combines them.

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 through parameter examples (e.g., 'ULS 1.35G + 1.5Q') and explains combo_type values ('uls' or 'sls'), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving a small gap in usage guidance.

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