etabs_add_frames

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: joints are created or merged automatically, and partial failures are reported per item. It stops short of noting any prerequisites (unlocked model, defined sections, active units).

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by side effects and return behavior. No filler or restated name.

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 annotations and an output schema, the description covers the key agent-relevant facts: automatic joint merging, ordered return names, per-item failure reporting. The gap is the unexplained csys parameter and the absence of any precondition note (e.g., model state or unit system).

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%: the 'csys' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, and the 5000-item batch limit is unexplained. The description only implies start/end semantics via 'between two points' and says nothing about section assignment or coordinate-system behavior.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Draw beams, columns and braces between two points') and anchors it to the GUI equivalent 'Draw > Frame'. The phrase 'between two points' cleanly separates it from siblings like etabs_add_areas and etabs_add_points.

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 Draw-menu analogy implies the modeling context in which this tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance (e.g., when to prefer etabs_add_points plus a connect step, or how this interacts with etabs_assign_section). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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