创建盾构隧道整体管片环

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

The description adds that it does not delete or overwrite existing elements, which reinforces the destructiveHint=false annotation but does not go beyond it. It does not mention idempotency or other behavioral details, though the annotations already cover idempotentHint=true. Thus it provides minimal additional context beyond what annotations already disclose.

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 a single, compact sentence that leads with the action and includes the key non-destructive guarantee. It is front-loaded, has no filler, and every word earns its place. Ideal conciseness for a tool with a well-covered schema.

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's complexity (12 params, no output schema, annotations present), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the core purpose and non-destructive behavior but does not describe return values, error conditions, or when to use it relative to siblings. However, the schema and annotations fill many gaps, making it sufficient but not 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?

All 12 parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no extra meaning about parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. The description mentions the preview token but that is already detailed in the schema. Therefore, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 action (create) and the resource (monolithic family segment rings) using a preview token. It distinguishes itself from preview tools by explicitly indicating this is the creation step. However, it does not directly name sibling tools or contrast with create_tunnel_segments, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 a usage context by requiring a preview token, which suggests a prior preview step, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks exclusions or explicit routing to sibling tools like preview_tunnel_rings or create_tunnel_segments.

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