Apply a force load in Newtons to a named selection in an ANSYS Mechanical analysis, specifying X, Y, and Z components and target analysis index.
Add Force load in Newtons. Args: named_selection, fx_n, fy_n, fz_n, analysis_index
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fx_n | No | ||
| fy_n | No | ||
| fz_n | No | ||
| analysis_index | No | ||
| named_selection | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the unit (Newtons), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether repeated calls accumulate, what coordinate system the vector acts in, what analysis_index selects, or whether a model must be connected first.
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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the trailing 'Args:' list is pure duplication of the input schema and earns no place. The overall size is small, so it is not verbose, just partly redundant.
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. Still, for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits the direction convention for the force vector, the meaning of analysis_index, and the semantics of named_selection — gaps an agent cannot fill elsewhere.
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, yet it only restates the five parameter names that already appear as schema titles. The single added fact is the Newton unit for the force components; named_selection and analysis_index remain semantically opaque.
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 and resource ('Add Force load in Newtons'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings like add_moment, add_pressure, or add_fixed_support. However, it does nothing to separate itself from the very close sibling add_remote_force, so an agent must still guess between the two.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_remote_force or add_moment. Usage is only implied by the name and the presence of a named_selection argument.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.