apply_prestress

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

The description only restates the action and documents arguments; it does not disclose side effects, whether existing prestress loads are overwritten or accumulated, failure behavior, or prerequisites. Annotations only indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the description was expected to add behavioral context but does not.

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 a one-line purpose followed by parameter explanations. Nothing is redundant, though the bilingual repetitions add a little length without diminishing clarity.

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 parameters are covered and the core action is clear, but the description omits preconditions such as the tendon and load case already existing, and it does not describe what happens in the model after application. For a mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations guidance, this leaves an agent to infer important operational context.

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 fully compensates by explaining every parameter: units for force (N with a kN example), tension_type code meanings (0=start, 1=end, 2=both), the list-or-string form of tendon_name, and the purpose of group_name. This is strong 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Apply prestress force to tendon(s)' with a matching Chinese gloss. It is specific enough that an agent can identify the operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling load-related tools such as add_initial_tension_load or add_cable_length_load.

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. Sibling tools include other load-application and initial-tension tools, and the description gives no conditions, exclusions, or hints that would help an agent choose among them.

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