etabs_define_concrete_material

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Define', implying a mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites an existing material, if it requires the model to be unlocked, or what happens on duplicate names). It also does not mention any error handling or return behavior. The units note ('en las unidades actuales') is helpful but insufficient.

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, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified, omitting critical context that would help an agent use the tool correctly. It is not verbose, but it lacks the necessary structure to be fully helpful.

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?

For a definition tool with 6 parameters, 3 required, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavior when a material with the same name exists, does not clarify the units beyond 'current units', and does not mention the output (though an output schema exists). An agent would likely need to infer or seek additional information to call this tool 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 only clarifies fc (f'c) and modulus, but does not explain poisson, weight_per_volume, or thermal_coefficient. While it maps two required parameters to their engineering meanings, the other parameters remain unexplained, leaving a significant gap for a tool with 6 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 states a specific verb 'Define' and resource 'material de concreto' (concrete material), and mentions f'c and modulus, which are key properties. It is clear and distinguishes from etabs_materials which likely lists materials. However, it does not mention the other parameters (poisson, weight, thermal) which could add clarity, but the core purpose is clear.

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 like etabs_materials or other definition tools. It does not state when not to use it, prerequisites, or mention any alternative tools. The description only explains what it does, not the context for selection.

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