etabs_assign_label

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the write semantics are partly covered. The description usefully adds that a missing label is auto-created and that remove detaches objects from groups, but it says nothing about whether existing label assignments are overwritten or what permissions are required.

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 with no filler; the core action and the create-if-missing behavior come first. It is efficient, though the UI reference adds little.

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?

With 7 parameters, three mutually alternative targeting modes (group/names/selected), and a mutation side effect, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but the targeting semantics and overwrite behavior are missing.

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 43%, and the description does not compensate: the 'group, pier or spandrel' phrasing merely restates the label_type enum, leaving labels, names, selected, and object_kind unexplained. An agent cannot tell from this how to target objects.

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 (assign) and resource (group/pier/spandrel label), plus the side effect that the label is created if missing. It reads clearly against siblings like etabs_assign_section or etabs_assign_loads, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from them.

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?

Only a UI analogy ('like Assign > ... in ETABS') is given; there is no statement of when to use this versus other assignment tools, no prerequisites, and no guidance on choosing between the group/names/selected targeting modes.

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