add_nodal_mass

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure; 'Add nodal mass' confirms a mutating operation but nothing more. It does not explain whether repeated calls accumulate or overwrite mass, what units or coordinate system apply, or any side effects on existing definitions.

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 compact and front-loaded with the operation and purpose. The bilingual parentheticals add some redundancy for an English-speaking agent, but overall the structure is scannable and free of filler.

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 5-parameter add operation, the essential operation and parameters are present, and defaults are visible in the schema. However, notes on units, accumulation behavior, and relationship to the broader dynamic-analysis workflow are missing, leaving some uncertainty about side effects.

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, but the Args list mostly restates schema titles ('Mass in X direction' vs 'Mass X'). It adds modest clarification that node_id can be plural and that mass_rm is rotational mass, but these are largely self-evident from the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add nodal mass') with an explicit purpose ('for dynamic analysis'), making its function clear. It is distinguishable from related sibling tools like apply_nodal_force or add_load_to_mass, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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' implies it belongs in dynamic-analysis model setup, which is useful context. However, it does not state when not to use it, does not mention alternatives, and leaves the boundary with related load/mass tools to inference.

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