add_distribute_plane_load

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

Annotations are all false/default, so they only indicate this is a mutation. The description adds no behavioral context about side effects, duplicate handling, required setup, or how the load is actually associated with the model. It does not explain what happens if points or plate_ids are omitted.

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 docstring is compact and scannable, with a one-sentence summary followed by an aligned Args list. The bilingual glosses add some repetition but each line contributes parameter information; there is no filler or unnecessary prose.

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?

With 9 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is not sufficient for reliable invocation. It omits load magnitude specification, valid type_name values, coordinate-system semantics, and any required setup, so an agent would need external knowledge to call this tool correctly.

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%, so the Chinese parameter glosses carry the explanatory burden. They clarify each parameter's basic role (e.g., point1 defines the plane, plate_ids is optional), but leave critical semantics unexplained: what type_name values are valid, how coord_system is interpreted, and what units/format the point coordinates use.

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 first line states a clear verb ('Apply') and resource ('arbitrary distributed plane load'), reinforced by the Chinese gloss. It is not a tautology and the plane-load terminology separates it from beam/plate loads, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like add_plate_element_load.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_plate_element_load or apply_beam_distributed_load. There is also no mention of prerequisites like needing a pre-existing load case, load group, or load type.

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