etabs_set_point_restraint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the default restraint (fixed), but does not disclose that this is a mutation operation, whether it overwrites existing restraints, or whether the point must exist. The effect of item_type is also unexplained.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient and free of filler, though it could benefit from a bit more structure to separate parameter explanations.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not shown, the description is incomplete. It does not explain item_type, the behavior when restraints is null, potential side effects, or prerequisites. An agent would lack critical information to call it 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 partially explains the restraints array by listing the degrees of freedom, but does not clarify that it is a boolean array or what true/false means. The item_type parameter is entirely omitted, and the point parameter is only implied by 'nudo' without format details.

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 verb 'Asigna' (assigns) and the resource 'restricciones a un nudo' (restraints to a node), and explicitly lists the degrees of freedom [U1, U2, U3, R1, R2, R3] and the default behavior (fixed). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools, which focus on other ETABS entities.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., point creation) or when not to use it. It simply states what it does without contextualizing its place in a workflow.

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