etabs_add_areas

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries little added behavioral weight. 'Returns new area names' merely restates return values that the output schema already covers, and it discloses nothing about permissions, model state requirements, or limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a short return note; appropriately sized with no filler. The core action is stated first, which helps an agent scan it quickly.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, for a batch creation tool (up to 5000 areas) with zero schema description coverage and no annotations on model-state prerequisites, the definition leaves notable gaps around coordinate system selection and preconditions.

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 reported at 0%, so the description should compensate but does not: it never explains 'csys', the meaning of the 'areas' array, or the 'name' field. It only loosely implies the 'points' parameter via 'corner points', leaving key parameters undocumented in the description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Draw floors, slabs and walls from corner points', and references the analogous GUI command (Draw > Floor/Wall). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like etabs_add_frames or etabs_define_area_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?

The parenthetical '(like Draw > Floor/Wall)' gives implied usage context but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus etabs_add_points or etabs_add_frames, nor any prerequisites such as needing the model unlocked or a valid area property defined.

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