add_equivalent_stress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Add' implies mutation, but it does not disclose permissions needed, whether the result is persisted/reversible, or dependencies on a solved analysis. Only the named_selection scoping behavior is explained.

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?

Two compact lines with the core action front-loaded and the Args broken out. Efficient and readable, with no wasted filler.

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 not be described. However, for a no-annotation mutation tool, the description leaves the analysis_index parameter and the operational prerequisites (valid selection, existing analysis) underexplained.

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 does clarify named_selection semantics (empty = whole model), which is valuable, but analysis_index is passed through with no explanation of what it selects or how it defaults.

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 (Equivalent/von Mises Stress result), which clearly differentiates it from the sibling add_principal_stress and add_stress_tool. Removal of ambiguity is good, though it does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer.

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 'optionally scoped to a named selection' as context but never states when to use this vs add_principal_stress or the other stress tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether an analysis must exist or be solved). No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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