etabs_assign_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the UI menu path, not behavioral context such as whether existing assignments are overwritten, what happens if the named section is undefined, or how names vs group vs selected selects the target objects.

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 the operation named first and a compact parenthetical for the UI equivalent. Nothing is redundant, though the brevity leaves the tool under-specified rather than optimized.

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 five-parameter model-mutating tool with 20% schema coverage, this description is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the missing target-selection semantics (names/group/selected) and the missing define-before-assign prerequisite are real gaps for an agent trying to invoke this correctly.

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 20% (only 'section' is documented), so the description must compensate. It clarifies the frame-vs-area meaning of the kind/section pairing, but says nothing about group, names, or selected — three of five parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, including how target objects are chosen.

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 (frame section or area property), with the kind enum distinguishing frame vs area usage. The UI menu mapping (Assign > Frame > Section / Shell > Property) reinforces what operation this performs. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from the define_frame_section / define_area_section siblings, leaving the define-then-assign relationship implicit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that a section/property must already exist (via define_frame_section or define_area_section) before this tool is called, and nothing states how names/group/selected scope interacts with the assignment.

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