add_system_temperature

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint false, implying mutation, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose whether repeated calls accumulate or overwrite loads, whether the load case must already exist, or what side effects occur on existing model data. With weak annotations, more responsibility falls on the description, and this is a significant gap.

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 a compact docstring: one sentence defining behavior plus a four-item argument list. Each line adds relevant information, and the Chinese glosses serve as useful clarifiers rather than 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 mutating tool with no output schema and several closely related sibling load tools, this description is not sufficiently complete. It omits when to choose system temperature over custom/gradient/beam-section temperature, and it does not state prerequisites or the effect of repeated calls. An agent could make a plausible call, but not with full confidence about load-case handling.

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 partially does by clarifying element_id can be plural ('Element ID(s)') and by giving temperature sign convention ('升温+20，降温-20'). However, it omits units and acceptable string formats for element_id, and group_name is only labeled rather than explained.

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: 'Apply system temperature load', and the Chinese gloss '整体升降温荷载' clarifies this is a whole-structure thermal load. This distinguishes it in load type from sibling tools like add_gradient_temperature and add_beam_section_temperature, though it does not name those alternatives 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_custom_temperature, add_gradient_temperature, or add_beam_section_temperature. No prerequisites are mentioned, such as whether a load case or group must already exist, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are provided. The Args block documents parameters, not usage policy.

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