etabs_assign_loads

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the safety burden is partly lifted, and the description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: values are interpreted in present units and 'gravity' resolves to global -Z. It does not mention the replace-vs-add behavior on existing loads, which is important behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose and menu mapping come first, followed by the units/direction conventions. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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 the safety profile. For a multi-kind nested schema in a 55-tool surface, the description covers what loads and units/direction mean, but omits the load-pattern prerequisite and the replace-vs-add implication, leaving a small gap.

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 at 0% for the single 'loads' parameter, so the description should compensate, and it only partially does: the units convention and gravity semantics are relevant to the 'value' and 'direction' fields, but the array structure, 'pattern' requirement, and 'replace' default are not addressed. The nested LoadInput fields do carry their own descriptions, which limits the penalty.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Assign loads') and even maps it to the ETABS menu path (Assign > Frame/Shell/Joint Loads), then enumerates the load types it handles (distributed/point on frames, uniform on areas, forces/moments on joints). This clearly separates it from the define_* siblings such as etabs_define_load_patterns or etabs_define_wind_load, though it never names them 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?

Usage is only implied by the parenthetical menu mapping and the list of supported load kinds; there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over etabs_define_load_patterns, etabs_define_seismic_load, or etabs_list_load_definitions. An agent can infer that this applies loads onto already-existing objects, but the prerequisite (a load pattern must first exist) and any exclusions are left unstated.

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