add_frictionless_support

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 and largely fails it. "Add" hints at a mutating operation that creates a new boundary condition, but nothing is said about side effects, whether it requires an active connection, whether it can be applied repeatedly, or how it interacts with existing supports.

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 description is short and front-loads the purpose, which is good. The trailing "Args:" clause is developer-facing filler that duplicates the schema and does not earn its place, but the overall text is not bloated.

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 explained, but the description still leaves the agent without any domain grounding for a specialized CAE boundary-condition tool. Nothing explains the required named_selection reference or the analysis_index target, which are essential to invoking it correctly.

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, and it does not. "Args: named_selection, analysis_index" merely repeats the parameter names already visible in the schema, adding no meaning about what a named selection must reference or what analysis_index selects (or its default of 0).

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Add Frictionless Support"), so an agent knows a boundary condition of that type is being created. However, it is essentially the tool name restated with no elaboration on what a frictionless support is or how it differs from siblings like add_fixed_support or add_displacement. Minimum viable, with no sibling differentiation.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_fixed_support or other boundary-condition tools. The agent is left to infer that this applies to a named selection in a mechanical analysis.

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