add_time_history_case

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Add' and parameter labels; it does not say whether the case is appended to the model, whether duplicates are allowed, or how this affects analysis configuration. No credit is earned beyond what annotations already convey.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose line, followed by an ordered parameter list with bilingual labels. There is little wasted prose, though the parameter list partially repeats schema titles and could be trimmed if schema descriptions existed.

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 add-operation with five parameters, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings, but it lacks usage context, relationships to time-history functions or analysis cases, and any return or side-effect details. It is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps.

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 by listing each parameter with a meaningful role and unit, e.g. duration as 'Total duration in seconds' and time_step as 'Output time step in seconds', plus Chinese translations. The index and description parameters remain thin, but overall it provides real semantic value beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly identifies the operation with a specific verb and resource: 'Add time history analysis case', including a bilingual translation. It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like add_time_history_function, relying on the 'case' vs 'function' contrast to be inferred.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_time_history_function or add_spectrum_case, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of where this operation fits in a typical analysis workflow. The agent must infer usage context from the name alone.

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