create_load_case

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses an important behavioral detail: the software automatically applies self-weight when a load case named '自重' is created. It also states the prerequisite relationship between load cases and loads. It does not cover duplicate-name behavior or failure modes, but the added context is meaningful and does not contradict the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action and prerequisite. The parameter block is organized and necessary. Minor redundancy exists with the schema (default value is repeated), but overall every section earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential call information: purpose, prerequisite, parameter values, and a special-case behavior. It does not describe return values or error handling, but this is not critical given the simplicity of the operation.

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 the full burden for parameter meaning. It fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'name' with examples and 'case_type' with an enumerated list of allowed values and the default. This is significantly more informative than the bare schema string fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a load case', and adds a useful prerequisite ('A load case must exist before loads can be applied'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like create_load_group or create_live_load_case, but the resource term 'load case' is specific enough to be clear.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: a load case must be created before applying loads, and creating a '自重' load case is the special path for self-weight. It does not state explicit exclusions or name alternative tools, but the usage context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide when to call this tool.

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