Assign a uniform force-per-area load to slabs or walls in ETABS, specifying area, load pattern, and value with optional direction and replace settings.
Asigna carga uniforme a una losa o muro (fuerza por area).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| area | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| replace | No | ||
| direction | No | gravity | |
| item_type | No | ||
| load_pattern | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses no side effects, required permissions, or behavior such as replacement of existing loads (despite the 'replace' parameter). It only names the action without any operational details.
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 a single, direct sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.
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 lacks context about the expected output, effect on the model (e.g., whether it requires an unlocked model), and any interactions with other tools. Given the absence of parameter details, the agent has insufficient information for correct invocation.
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?
Paramater descriptions are absent entirely (schema description coverage is 0%). The tool description does not clarify the meaning of 'area', 'load_pattern', 'value', 'direction', or 'item_type', leaving parameter semantics undefined.
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: assigning a uniform load (force per area) to a slab or wall. It specifies the resource type and units, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's primary function.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or conditions. The usage context is only implied by the action described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.