etabs_assign_frame_distributed_load

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states the assignment action. It does not disclose that replace defaults to true (overwriting existing loads), how units/direction are interpreted, or whether a lock/unlock state is required. The mutation semantics are implied by 'asigna' but no behavioral consequences are described.

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 single-sentence description is free of filler and front-loads the core action and object. However, it is so terse that it omits critical behavioral and parameter details, making it concise but not fully appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 six parameters, zero annotations, and zero schema descriptions, this one-line definition is not enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. Required parameters like load_pattern and value have no explained semantics, and the output schema does not compensate for missing input guidance.

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 explain parameters; it only clarifies that value represents force per length and that the target is a frame. It leaves load_pattern, direction, replace, and item_type undefined, forcing the agent to guess at valid values and defaults.

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 Spanish description names a concrete action ('asigna' = assigns), the target resource (a frame), and the load type (uniformly distributed, force per length). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling etabs_assign_area_uniform_load, which targets areas rather than frames.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives such as etabs_assign_area_uniform_load or about prerequisites like an unlocked model. The only implicit context is the frame target in the description, so an agent must infer usage from the name rather than from explicit instructions.

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