etabs_define_circular_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects such as model modification, overwriting existing sections, or error conditions. The single verb 'define' is ambiguous about the tool's impact on the ETABS model.

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 concise sentence with no superfluous content. It is well-structured for brevity, though this brevity contributes to the lack of contextual information.

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 absence of annotations and the minimal description, the tool is not self-contained. An agent would need additional knowledge about ETABS circular sections, units, and input requirements to use this tool correctly. The description does not provide enough context for safe 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?

The schema lists three parameters (name, diameter, material) but provides no descriptions. The description does not explain their units, valid ranges, or relationships (e.g., whether 'material' must reference an existing material definition). This leaves the agent without essential input guidance.

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 the action 'Define una seccion circular' clearly, naming the resource. However, it lacks specific detail on the scope or conditions (e.g., whether it creates a new section or modifies an existing one), which distinguishes it only moderately from sibling tools like 'etabs_define_rectangular_section'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The description is a bare statement with no actionable context for an agent.

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