add_spectrum_case

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

Annotations are all neutral/false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a load case is added, but does not clarify side effects, dependencies on existing spectrum functions, whether duplicate cases are allowed, or how null direction info is treated.

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, well-structured as an Args list, and every line adds information. It includes bilingual terms without unnecessary prose, making it easy to scan and parse.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and no explicit annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, dependency requirements (e.g., spectrum functions must exist), behavior for optional/null fields, and any note about results or 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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It adds valuable semantics for all six parameters, including that 'kind' is a combination method (SRSS/CQC) and that info_x/y/z are arrays of [function_name, factor]. However, it does not specify valid integer values for 'kind' or exact array shapes.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Add response spectrum load case', with an additional Chinese translation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like add_time_history_case or create_load_case, but the resource is specific enough to be identifiable.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as add_time_history_case or create_load_case. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent select this tool correctly.

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