rsap_define_support

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether defining a label overwrites an existing name, whether the model is mutated, whether special permissions are needed, or how errors are reported; it only explains parameter semantics.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core definition, and every sentence earns its place: the True=restrained rule, presets, and an itemized Args list. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

All parameters are covered and presets help, but the description omits workflow context: it doesn't mention that the defined label must later be applied with rsap_assign_support, nor does it describe any return value or failure behavior. For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations/output schema, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, but the Args section explicitly documents every parameter (name and six DOF booleans) and adds the key semantic 'True = restrained' plus preset combinations. This fully compensates for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 'Define a support (boundary condition) label,' clearly stating the action and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling rsap_assign_support by focusing on label creation rather than assignment, and it clarifies the core boolean semantics with 'True = restrained.'

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?

Common presets (pinned, fixed, roller) imply when this tool is useful, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with rsap_assign_support or indicates that labels must be defined before they can be assigned. Usage guidance is 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.