create_gravity_load

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only repeats the fact of creation. It does not mention prerequisites, effects on existing loads, units, coordinate conventions, or error conditions. This is essentially no behavioral disclosure beyond the verb itself.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It contains only the verb and object, leaving all useful context omitted.

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 tool with six input parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and many load-creation siblings, a one-line description is far from complete. An agent has no way to understand the required inputs, coordinate system, or relationship to other loads.

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% and the description adds no meaning to any of the six parameters. Magnitude, direction, step_name, model_name, name, and timeout are left entirely to the schema property names, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the specific verb and resource: 'Create a gravity load' – this identifies the operation as creating a gravity load among the many load-related siblings. However, it does not distinguish gravity load from body force or concentrated force, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_body_force, create_pressure_load, or create_concentrated_force. The absence of context means an agent must infer from the tool name alone.

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