add_principal_stress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this mutates the model tree, whether it requires a prior solved analysis, whether re-adding replaces or appends a result, or what analysis_index refers to. Only the bare 'add' semantics are conveyed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. It is efficiently structured, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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, with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the definition omits usage context, the meaning of analysis_index, and the behavioral effects of adding a result — gaps an agent cannot close from the structured fields.

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 usefully supplies the enum values max/mid/min for `which`, which the schema lacks, but leaves `analysis_index` completely unexplained beyond its name and 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 Principal Stress result'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as add_stress_tool or add_equivalent_stress, which an agent would have to disambiguate by schema inspection.

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_stress_tool or add_equivalent_stress, nor any prerequisite (e.g. whether an analysis must exist or be solved first). The text only enumerates arguments, which is not usage guidance.

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