etabs_add_load_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It only states the action and load_type mapping, but does not explain the effect of add_analysis_case or self_weight_multiplier, nor any side effects like overwriting existing patterns. Permissions and return behavior are also absent.

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 front-loaded: the purpose is stated first, followed by the load_type mapping. It is efficient with words, though it sacrifices necessary detail. For its length, it is well structured.

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?

With four parameters, one required, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of add_analysis_case and self_weight_multiplier, any behavior on name conflicts, or the nature of the return value despite an output schema existing. An agent would likely need additional context to call it correctly.

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. It explains load_type with a numeric mapping, but leaves add_analysis_case and self_weight_multiplier entirely unexplained, and only implicitly covers name. This is insufficient for four parameters.

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 verb and resource: 'Crea un patron de carga' (creates a load pattern) and provides a useful load_type mapping. It is unambiguous about the primary action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like etabs_load_patterns (which likely lists patterns), but the name 'add' and the action verb suffice.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like an open model, whether it replaces existing patterns, or that etabs_load_patterns should be used for querying. The description implies a create operation but provides no explicit context for selection.

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