etabs_add_points

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

The annotation block already declares the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's real contribution is the non-obvious de-duplication rule: existing joints at the same location are reused rather than duplicated. That is genuinely useful behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema. It stops short of explaining whether an unlock is required or how partial failures in a batch are reported. Note a mild tension with idempotentHint=false, though the description never claims repeated calls are no-ops, so this is not a contradiction.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scoped by the parenthetical. Nothing is padded and nothing needs reordering.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety, which keeps this from being inadequate. But for a batch mutation accepting up to 5000 points, the description omits the csys interpretation, required model state, and batch/limit handling — meaningful gaps the agent must resolve elsewhere.

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 reported as 0%, so the description should compensate but does not: it says nothing about 'csys' (the coordinate system the supplied coordinates are interpreted in), which is the one parameter whose meaning is not self-evident. It gestures at 'coordinates' but adds no format, unit, or ordering detail beyond the nested schema text.

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?

A specific verb+resource ('Add joints at coordinates') that an agent can distinguish from etabs_add_frames and etabs_add_areas, which add different object types. It does not, however, explicitly call out those siblings or the scope limits that separate this from a generic point-creation call.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions (e.g. model must be unlocked, units set via etabs_set_units), and no pointer to alternatives such as etabs_call_api for joints not expressible as coordinates. The parenthetical about reused joints is behavior, not usage guidance.

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