add_reaction_force

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: no precondition that a Mechanical connection and an existing named selection are required, no statement about which analysis the probe attaches to, and no indication of side effects. It only names the created object.

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 core action. The 'Args:' fragment adds little beyond the schema, but the description 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 no explanation, but the definition omits the prerequisites and parameter meaning an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Given the sibling set implies a live Mechanical session, the missing connection/named-selection context is a real gap.

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, but 'Args: named_selection, analysis_index' merely restates the parameter names. It never explains what analysis_index means (default 0) or that named_selection must reference an existing selection created via list_named_selections.

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 Reaction probe at a named selection.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that add stress, deformation, or boundary-condition objects. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closest alternatives, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_principal_stress or add_equivalent_stress. The agent must infer that this is an analysis-setup probe tool from the name alone.

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