rsap_add_load_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that an explicit case number is auto-assigned if omitted, but it does not disclose that this tool mutates project state, whether a project must be open, or what the return value is.

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 well-structured with a summary line followed by an Args block. It is not overly long and each line provides useful detail, though the examples could be condensed without losing value.

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?

For a simple creation tool with four explained parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits return value information and prerequisites, and the lack of annotations means those gaps are not filled elsewhere.

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?

The description fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. It explains every parameter with examples and enumerates allowed values for 'nature' and 'analysis', and it clarifies the 'number' auto-assignment behavior.

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 starts with 'Create a simple load case', which is a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like rsap_add_combination, the word 'simple' hints at a distinction from combinations, and the overall meaning is clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this tool should be used before applying loads, nor does it contrast with load application tools like rsap_add_nodal_force or rsap_add_bar_uniform_load.

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