load_system

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

With annotations limited to three false hints (readOnly=false, openWorld=false, destructive=false), the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers: it discloses failure mode ('A wrong shape fails with every schema error and the expected shape of the offending part'), the issues mechanism ('unknown types, ports and invalid values are kept and listed in issues'), the equivalence to check_system, and the 'fix every error, then solve' workflow. This is substantive context well beyond the annotations, and nothing contradicts them.

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 main action and return value are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a tight paragraph on use case and failure behavior. Every sentence carries information (document source, error handling, issue reporting, next step), with no filler or repetition of the schema's example.

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 output schema exists (so return format is covered elsewhere), the description is complete for a complex one-call system builder: it explains the document source, validation and error behavior, the issues report link, and the follow-up solve step. The only minor omissions (auth/overwrite semantics) are not required given the annotations and schema richness.

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 coverage is 100% with a rich example, so the baseline is 3; the description earns a 4 by adding validation semantics for the document parameter: what happens on malformed shape, that unknown types/ports/invalid values are preserved in `issues`, and that get_system returns a conforming document. This goes beyond the schema's structural description.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Build a whole system in one call from a system document; returns its system_id.' The phrase 'whole system in one call' clearly distinguishes this from the incremental siblings (add_component, connect, add_control) and from create_system, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 gives clear context for when to use it ('The quickest way to create a system... every component, connection and control in one document, then solve') and names get_system as the source of a valid document. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it (e.g., modifying an existing system via add_component/connect), so it falls short of fully explicit routing.

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