add_plate_element_load

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

All annotations are false/neutral, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Apply plate element load', which implies a mutation but does not explain whether repeated calls accumulate loads, overwrite existing loads, or require prior setup. No side effects, constraints, or consequences are disclosed.

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 tight and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact parameter list with no filler. The bilingual annotations are repetitive but each line carries information. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool, though it prioritizes completeness over detailed explanation.

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 load-application tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description omits critical context: allowed numeric values for load_type and load_place, how list_load and list_xy are paired, whether element_id accepts ranges/names, and what happens on success. The parameter list alone is not enough for an agent to call the tool correctly with valid inputs.

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 0% schema description coverage, the parameter list is the only source of meaning for the 8 parameters. It provides a short gloss for each parameter, including Chinese translations and a useful note that coord_system=3 means global. However, most entries just restate the parameter names ('Load type', 'Load values', 'Location coords') without explaining value domains, units, or relationships between list_load and list_xy.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Apply plate element load', reinforced by the Chinese gloss '板单元面上荷载'. This identifies the target operation and distinguishes it at a basic level from beam, nodal, and temperature load tools in the sibling list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar-looking load tools such as add_distribute_plane_load, so it stops short of a 5.

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 apply_beam_distributed_load or add_distribute_plane_load. It also does not mention prerequisites like whether the load case must already exist, or whether the tool is appropriate for a particular load type. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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