add_load_to_mass

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

Annotations give only default false hints, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It says 'convert' but does not explain side effects, whether the original load case remains, whether the conversion is reversible, or what model state is changed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise argument documentation. The bilingual duplication adds some length, but it is not excessive and serves to clarify meaning.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description provides enough to invoke it, but it omits side effects and return behavior. There is also no usage distinction from similar load- and mass-related siblings, leaving some ambiguity for agent decision-making.

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 compensate. It documents both parameters: name as the load case to convert and factor as the conversion factor with the usual value of 1.0, adding practical meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Convert a load case to mass for dynamic analysis.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and semantically distinguishes it from related tools like add_nodal_mass or create_load_case.

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 phrase 'for dynamic analysis' provides an implied usage context, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as add_nodal_mass. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool references are given.

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