create_lsdyna_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses a genuinely important side effect: the created analysis cannot be deleted through the scripting API due to a null-reference error and must be removed in the GUI. That is non-obvious lifecycle information an agent cannot get elsewhere, though prerequisites (e.g., an active Mechanical connection) and error behavior are not covered.

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 core action and API call are front-loaded, and the cross-reference and deletion caveat both earn their space. The redundant 'Args: restart' tail is the only wasted line.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is created, which API is invoked, how the restart flag changes the result, and the deletion limitation. Only connection/prerequisite state 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: restart=True is explicitly mapped to an LS-DYNA Restart analysis with a different underlying API method, which the boolean schema alone would not convey. The trailing 'Args: restart' adds nothing, but the substantive mapping is present.

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 specific verb and resource ('Add an LS-DYNA analysis to the Mechanical model') and names the exact API methods used (Model.AddLSDynaAnalysis / AddLSDynaRestartAnalysis). It also explicitly separates itself from create_lsdyna_system_snippet by clarifying that the system templates (LSDYNA / RestartLSDYNA) are a different concept from the analysis.

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?

It tells the agent how the restart flag selects behavior (restart=True produces a Restart analysis) and cross-references create_lsdyna_system_snippet for the related but distinct system-creation step. There is no explicit 'do not use this when...' framing, but the context for selecting the tool is clear.

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