etabs_set_units

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 does disclose a key trait: the tool only affects value reporting and does not modify the model. However, it omits other potentially relevant behaviors such as persistence (session vs. model), scope, or whether it requires an open model. The disclosure is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. The action is front-loaded, and the critical side effect (no model modification) is clearly stated. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple setter with a single parameter, the description covers the primary purpose and the most important behavioral note (non-modification of the model). It does not mention the return value or prerequisites like an open model, but these are less critical for a straightforward setter. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the agent to use the 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?

The schema provides zero description coverage for the 'units' parameter, so the description must compensate. It offers two example values ('Ton_m_C', 'kN_m_C') that hint at the expected format, but it does not enumerate the full set of acceptable units or explain the naming convention. This gives the agent a starting point but leaves ambiguity about allowed values.

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 tool's function: changing presentation units for reading data, with concrete examples ('Ton_m_C', 'kN_m_C'). It distinguishes itself from sibling getters and model-modification tools by explicitly focusing on unit presentation, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 relative to alternatives, nor does it mention that it should be invoked before reading data or that it affects subsequent queries. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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