add_total_deformation_all_modes

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 it discloses almost nothing. It does not state that this mutates the model/result tree, whether it requires an active Mechanical connection, whether it needs a completed modal analysis first, or whether repeated calls are idempotent.

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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'Args:' list merely repeats schema keys, which is minor waste, but the description is otherwise tight.

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 for a mutating tool with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation the description is not complete enough. It omits prerequisites, the effect of the defaults (6 modes, analysis index 0), and how it relates to sibling result tools.

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 it only echoes the parameter names ('Args: num_modes, analysis_index') with no meaning attached. It does not explain that num_modes controls how many modal modes are rendered or what analysis_index selects, leaving both parameters 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+resource ('Add Total Deformation') and scopes it to 'all modal modes', which distinguishes it from the sibling 'add_total_deformation' (presumably a single mode/scope) and from 'add_directional_deformation'. It never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 is given. The agent cannot tell from the text whether to prefer this over add_total_deformation, add_directional_deformation, or add_equivalent_stress, nor what prerequisite state (connected model, completed modal solve) is required.

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