etabs_define_wall

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

With no annotations and only a one-line description, the tool's side effects, requirements, and postconditions are completely undisclosed. The description does not mention what happens to existing definitions, required preceding steps, or any validation behavior.

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 one-sentence description is terse and free of fluff, but it is so sparse that it sacrifices useful information. It is concise but not effectively structured toward agent comprehension.

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 tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain required inputs, units, defaults, or the role of the wall property within the broader model context.

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 provides no descriptions for name, material, thickness, or shell_type, and the description does not clarify any of them. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate with any parameter meaning.

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 verb ('Define') and a resource ('wall property'), but it is too generic and does not distinguish this tool from other 'define' siblings like define_slab or define_concrete_material. More specificity about the wall property context is needed.

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 alternative definition tools or when defining a wall property is appropriate. The description lacks any contextual usage direction.

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