add_load_combine

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the creation action. It does not mention what happens on duplicate names, whether referenced load cases must already exist, or what side effects occur, so the description carries little transparency burden beyond the structured hints.

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 well-structured with the core action first and a compact Args list. The bilingual text duplicates content, which adds length, but the structure is still clear and front-loaded, and each part supports invocation.

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?

Parameter information is complete, but for a mutating tool with no output schema, the description lacks details about duplicate-name behavior, required load-case existence, and any return/result semantics. It is adequate for a basic add operation but has notable gaps in behavioral and operational context.

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 description must carry the full parameter burden. It does: all five parameters are listed, combine_type is given numeric meaning, combine_info is explained as a nested list [case_name, case_type, factor], and index default -1 is clarified. This fully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a load combination' and 'Combines multiple load cases into a single combination.' However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool add_check_load_combination, and the phrase 'for analysis/checking' could cause an agent to confuse this with a checking-specific combination tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_check_load_combination or create_load_case. The intended context is only implied by the general combination purpose, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditional routing.

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