add_directional_deformation

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it barely does. It never says this is a mutating operation, whether it requires an existing solved/connected model, whether it needs a named selection to exist, or what side effects adding a result has.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the core action, so there is no filler to trim. But the terseness tips into under-specification: an 'Args:' list is not enough structure for a tool whose schema documents nothing.

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 needn't be explained. Even so, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description omits prerequisites, side effects, and parameter meaning, leaving an agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It lists all three parameters and usefully supplies the X/Y/Z values for axis (the schema has no enum), but leaves named_selection and analysis_index completely unexplained beyond their names.

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) and resource (Directional Deformation result), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like add_total_deformation, add_total_deformation_all_modes, or add_principal_stress, which also add result objects.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to pick directional deformation over total deformation or principal stress, nor any prerequisite (e.g., a solved analysis or active connection) needed before adding a result. The only hint is the axis enumeration, which is not usage guidance.

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