Apply a moment load in N·m to a named selection in an ANSYS Mechanical analysis, specifying Mx, My, Mz components and analysis index.
Add Moment load in N·m. Args: named_selection, mx_nm, my_nm, mz_nm, analysis_index
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mx_nm | No | ||
| my_nm | No | ||
| mz_nm | 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 implies a mutation ('Add') and gives the moment units, but says nothing about what the load attaches to, permission/connection requirements, reversibility, or how it interacts with analysis_index. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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 purpose, which is good. However, the second sentence is a raw 'Args:' list that adds no information beyond the schema, so the structure is efficient but not informative.
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. But for a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description omits the origin/prerequisites of named_selection, the role of analysis_index, and any behavioral context needed to call 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 only echoes the parameter names. The N·m unit implies mx/my/mz are moment components, but named_selection and analysis_index are left completely unexplained (what qualifies as a valid selection, what analysis_index selects). This is close to a bare parameter dump.
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 Moment load') plus the unit (N·m), which distinguishes it from sibling load tools like add_force, add_pressure, and add_standard_gravity. It does not explicitly name which siblings it is not, but the load type is clear enough to identify the tool.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus add_force or the other load-application siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., a connected model or an existing named selection). Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.