rsap_add_nodal_force

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying global axes and units for each force/moment component. However, it does not disclose whether repeated calls accumulate, whether the tool requires an existing load case, or any side effects beyond 'add'.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a bullet-like Args block. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the format makes parameters easy to scan.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (8 parameters) and absence of an output schema or annotations, the description covers all parameters with units and examples. It does not mention return values or preconditions like required connection, but for a simple mutation tool this is acceptable.

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 compensates fully by explaining every parameter: case_number, nodes with an example format, and the six force/moment components with units. This provides clear meaning beyond the raw schema property names.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('nodal force/moment to a case'), and clarifies the coordinate system ('global axes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like bar loads or self-weight loads.

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?

The description gives clear context (adding a nodal load to a load case) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling names imply the distinction, but there's no direct 'use this for nodal loads, not bar loads' guidance.

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