add_load_or_condition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses atomic rollback on property/scope failure, the keep_partial escape hatch, the unscoped default when named_selection is absent, override semantics, and per-property reporting of unknown names. It omits permission/auth requirements and any duplicate-detection nuance beyond retry safety, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose leads, then the kind list (necessary given no enum in schema), then properties_json mechanics, then failure/override rules. The long inline kind enumeration is verbose but earns its place since the schema lacks an enum; no filler sentences.

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?

Rich failure/scope semantics plus an output schema mean return values need no explanation, and mutation safety is covered despite absent annotations. The undocumented analysis_index and lack of guidance on choosing kind vs. raw keyword commands are the remaining gaps for a fairly complex 5-param mutation tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents the full kind vocabulary (case/spaces ignored), the properties_json format with an example and ordering rule, named_selection's unscoped default, and keep_partial behavior. analysis_index is never explained, leaving one of five params undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('load / boundary / initial condition'), and target ('LS-DYNA analysis') and enumerates the exact condition kinds. An agent can distinguish this from add_keyword_commands or add_result without opening a schema.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: it points to inspect_object for discovering available property names, tells the agent to put DefineBy first, and notes the Velocity/Displacement-overrides-Fixed-Support rule. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools like add_keyword_commands, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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