rsap_add_self_weight

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It explains the core operation (adding a dead load) and the effect of parameters, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the load is appended to existing loads, whether it overwrites prior self-weight definitions, or whether a target load case must already exist. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 purpose followed by a clean argument list. Every sentence/line adds value, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema defaults.

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?

The description covers all four parameters and the core behavior, which is good given the tool's moderate complexity. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the load case must exist) or what happens after calling (e.g., return value or model update). These omissions are noticeable without an output schema or annotations.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains every parameter: 'case_number' as target case, 'direction' with explicit options, 'factor' as multiplier, and 'selection' with syntax examples. This is exactly the kind of semantic enrichment the schema lacks.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the object ('self-weight (dead) load to a case'), which is specific and distinct from sibling load tools like rsap_add_nodal_force or rsap_add_bar_uniform_load. The first sentence is informative and 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?

The description gives clear context that this tool is for applying self-weight loads, and the parameter descriptions clarify scope via 'selection' and direction. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the tool name and sibling context make the intended use reasonably obvious.

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