add_support_settlement

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'Apply' — it doesn't state whether the load is appended to an existing case, whether duplicate calls create duplicate loads, or whether the operation can be reversed. It merely restates the operation type.

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 tightly structured: one purpose line followed by a clean Args list. There is no redundant prose, no repetition of types or defaults already in the schema, and each parameter is explained in a single short line. The core action is front-loaded.

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?

All parameter meanings are covered, but practical invocation context is missing for a 9-parameter mutating tool with no output schema. The description doesn't state whether case_name must already exist, whether group_name can be omitted safely, how multiple displacement components interact, or what happens on repeated calls. These gaps could lead an agent to misuse the tool.

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%, but the description compensates fully by documenting all nine parameters with meaningful bilingual labels. It gives the sign convention for dz ('下沉为负值'), clarifies dx/dy as forced displacements, rx/ry/rz as rotations, and indicates node_id can be multiple IDs. This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment the schema lacks.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Apply support settlement / nodal displacement load'. It goes beyond the tool name by giving the alternative term and Chinese translations, making the operation clear. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like apply_nodal_force or set_support, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apply_nodal_force, set_support, or other load-application tools. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like whether case_name must reference an existing load case or whether group_name is required. The only implied usage is from the purpose line itself, which is not sufficient.

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