Static load definitions / 静力荷载与组合

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, readOnly=false, but the description goes well beyond them: writes refresh the model and return confirmations without solving or activating a stage, calls can overwrite definitions or accumulate loads, there is no rollback of earlier calls, and the agent should query affected loads before retrying an uncertain write. That is precisely the operational context the annotations cannot 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?

Front-loaded with the routing bullets before the finer semantics, and the mutation/retry warning closes the definition where an agent needs it. It is dense and somewhat long, but for a thirteen-branch discriminated union almost every sentence corresponds to a real decision the caller must make, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained; the description still covers the write contract (refresh, confirmation, no solve, no stage activation, no rollback), unit-verification expectations, and the required follow-up (configure stages and solve). For a tool of this complexity nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and each union branch carries its own parameter documentation, so the schema does the heavy lifting (baseline 3). The description adds cross-cutting meaning the schema does not: combination rows are [case_type, case_name, factor] with combine_type=1 adding effects and 3 forming an envelope, None/[] yields an empty definition, and 'case_name selects the load case; group_name selects its activation group' warns the two are distinct objects.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb+resource ('Define static load cases/combinations and apply physical loads to existing nodes or elements') and the bullets enumerate all thirteen operations with their targets (nodes, frames, plates, plane patterns). An agent can tell the tool's scope apart from edit_prestress, edit_traffic and edit_construction purely from the description.

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?

Explicit routing is given per operation ('create_load_case creates the case referenced by later assignments', 'apply_nodal_force targets nodes; apply_beam_distributed_load targets frames') plus explicit boundaries against siblings ('Use edit_prestress for named tendon loads and edit_traffic for vehicle/lane cases'). It also warns which cases are not what they look like ('A static "活载" category does not create a moving-load case') and clarifies the case_name/group_name distinction.

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