etabs_call_api

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

Adds genuinely useful return/error semantics not in the annotations: ByRef values surface under 'outputs' and a non-zero 'ret' signals rejection (ok=false). But it discloses nothing about the destructive/permission surface the annotations flag (destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent), and an output schema already exists so the return-format note partly overlaps structured data.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then validation behavior, then the error convention. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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 catch-all API-invocation tool this is adequate but thin: it never points the agent to etabs_search_api/etabs_describe_api for discovering method paths, nor tells it when to reach for typed tools or the batch variant, which is the main selection question for this tool family.

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 100%, so all four parameters (path, args, confirm, max_items) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or naming-convention detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb+resource: call any ETABS API method, with the escape-hatch nature made explicit. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like etabs_call_api_batch or etabs_describe_api, so the agent gets no help routing among the API-level tools.

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 prefer this generic escape hatch over the many typed siblings (etabs_set_stories, etabs_add_points, etc.) or the batch variant. The only conditional text is borrowed from the schema's confirm field, not the description itself.

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