etabs_assign_diaphragm

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the safety burden is partly lifted. The description usefully discloses the dual effect (it both defines a diaphragm and assigns it) but says nothing about re-run behavior, whether an existing diaphragm with the same name is overwritten, or required model state.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action and stays free of padding. Minor redundancy in 'on the chosen stories' but nothing that should be cut.

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 non-destructiveness. Still, for a define+assign mutation the description omits model-state prerequisites and name-collision behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.

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 only 33% (just 'stories'), so the description must compensate and partially does: 'rigid or semi-rigid' clarifies the semi_rigid flag and 'on the chosen stories' echoes the stories parameter. However, the 'name' parameter and its default 'D1', including any uniqueness or overwrite semantics, are left entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb pair (define and assign) and the precise resource (a rigid or semi-rigid diaphragm) plus its target (area/slab objects on chosen stories). It implicitly separates itself from other assign_* siblings like etabs_assign_section or etabs_assign_loads, though it never states that differentiation explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus etabs_assign_section, etabs_set_mass_source, or other assignment tools, and no prerequisites are stated (model open, unlocked, slabs existing). The only usage hint, defaulting to 'all with slabs', is carried by the schema, not the description.

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