add_custom_temperature

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnly=false, no idempotency or destructiveness signal), and the description adds no behavioral context such as whether an existing load case must exist, whether the load is appended or replaces existing loads, or what units apply. It mostly restates parameter semantics, leaving side effects opaque.

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 definition is one sentence plus a flat Args list, front-loads the purpose, and avoids excessive prose. The only minor inefficiency is repeating the same information in English and Chinese for every parameter.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and minimal annotations, the parameter coverage is strong, but the description omits prerequisites, fallback behaviors (temperature_data default null), and any result/return information. It is adequate but not complete enough for fully reliable autonomous invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by documenting all five parameters, including orientation values (1=Y, 2=Z) and the [distance, temp_diff] shape of temperature_data. However, it leaves ambiguities such as the accepted string form of element_id and the meaning of null temperature_data.

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 uses a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('custom temperature load'), with a Chinese gloss that reinforces the intent. It is distinguishable from sibling temperature tools such as add_system_temperature and add_gradient_temperature because it is labeled 'custom', though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like add_system_temperature, add_gradient_temperature, or add_beam_section_temperature. An agent must infer that 'custom temperature points' implies a point-wise profile; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative suggestions are given.

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