apply_nodal_force

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

Annotations already signal that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotated profile. It does not disclose whether reapplying loads duplicates them, whether existing loads are overwritten, or whether the load case must pre-exist.

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 a one-sentence purpose followed by a standard Args block. The bilingual repetition adds minor length but remains readable and well organized for 9 parameters.

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 description is thin for a load-application tool with no output schema and minimal annotations. It omits when to use this tool among load siblings, the node_id string format, unit conventions, coordinate system context, and prerequisites like an existing load case or load group.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section provides the only semantic meaning for all 9 parameters, including directional meaning for force/moment components (e.g., 'Force in X direction', 'Moment about X axis'). However, it does not clarify the node_id format accepted per the schema (integer, array, or string) or the default-zero behavior of force components.

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 action and resource: 'Apply forces/moments at nodes', which clearly conveys the tool's function. It implicitly distinguishes this from sibling load tools like apply_beam_distributed_load or add_plate_element_load by specifying 'nodes', though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with add_nodal_mass.

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 given about when to use this tool versus the many sibling load-application tools (e.g., add_initial_tension_load, set_gravity, add_nodal_mass). The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context such as requiring an existing load case.

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