etabs_define_area_section

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the menu path: it does not say whether redefining an existing section overwrites or errors (relevant given idempotentHint=false), nor what permissions or model state 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 waste. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is arguably under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 6-parameter definition tool at 17% schema coverage the description is far too thin. It omits validation rules, default behavior, and the interaction with later assign-section calls that an agent needs to call it 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 17% (just 'thickness' documented), so the description must compensate but instead adds zero parameter detail. It never explains name, material, kind/slab_type/shell_type semantics or the units convention for thickness, leaving 5 of 6 parameters undocumented everywhere.

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 ('Define') and resource ('slab or wall property'), and the parenthetical maps it to the concrete ETABS menu path. This implicitly separates it from etabs_define_frame_section and etabs_define_material, though it never names a sibling to disambiguate 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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It only tells the agent that this creates a slab/wall section property, leaving the agent to infer that a section must exist before etabs_assign_section is useful.

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