add_displacement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: it does not say this is a mutating operation, whether it overwrites an existing displacement BC, what the units convention is, or what the agent needs beforehand (an existing named selection). The one genuine behavioral disclosure is that a None DOF is left unconstrained.

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 purpose sentence, then a compact arg list; almost every token earns its place. The 'Args:' enumeration partially restates the schema fields, but the '(None=free)' annotation adds value the schema lacks.

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 no explanation, but for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations the description is too thin — analysis_index semantics, units, and interaction with existing boundary conditions are all unaddressed.

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 must compensate: it names all five arguments and clarifies that None leaves a DOF free, which is real added meaning over the raw anyOf/number-or-null schema. However, it leaves analysis_index (an integer defaulting to 0) completely unexplained and does not clarify what named_selection must reference.

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+resource: 'Add Displacement BC', which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_remote_displacement, add_fixed_support, and add_frictionless_support. It is clear what the tool creates, though it never spells out that this is a boundary condition applied to a named selection.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as add_remote_displacement or add_fixed_support. 'Pass None for a DOF to leave it free' is parameter guidance, not usage guidance.

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