apply_beam_distributed_load

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false; the description adds little beyond the act of applying a load. It does not disclose side effects, whether existing distributed loads are overwritten, whether a load case must already exist, or what happens on failure. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating tool.

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, well-structured docstring with the purpose front-loaded and each parameter earning its place through concrete semantic detail. It is not bloated despite the bilingual annotations, and every line adds useful information.

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?

The argument coverage is strong and the tool is not overly complex, but the description omits return behavior, prerequisites, and side-effect context. With no output schema, an agent cannot tell what a successful call returns or what model state changes are expected beyond 'applies load'.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It thoroughly documents all six arguments, including direction value-to-axis mappings, the [q1,q2] linear-varying example for load_values, the 0-1 range for load_positions, and bilingual labels for each parameter. This greatly exceeds the bare 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 states a specific verb ('Apply'), a specific resource ('distributed load on beam elements'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling load tools like apply_nodal_force and add_plate_element_load. The bilingual phrasing reinforces the intended operation without ambiguity.

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 implies this tool is for distributed loads on beam elements, which helps an agent narrow against plate or nodal load tools. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions or prerequisites such as requiring an existing load case or load group.

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