etabs_define_combinations

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/repeatability profile is already carried structurally. The description adds limited extra behavior: it clarifies that default combos follow the 'active design codes', but says nothing about whether redefining a combo with an existing name overwrites it or duplicates it — a meaningful gap for a non-idempotent write 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?

One front-loaded sentence covering both capabilities with no filler, redundancy, or restatement of the tool name. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and parameters are fully schema-documented. However, for a non-idempotent write tool the description omits overwrite/duplicate behavior for existing combination names and any precondition check, leaving the agent guessing about side effects.

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 baseline is 3. The description maps its two sentences onto the two top-level parameters (combinations vs add_default_design_combos), which is helpful framing, but it adds no detail about structure, required fields, or the scale-factor/type semantics that the schema already defines.

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) plus resource (load combinations), and scopes the tool precisely: it creates combinations from load cases/other combinations OR generates code default design combos. The resource name distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like etabs_define_load_patterns and etabs_define_seismic_load, and the parenthetical UI path (Define > Load Combinations) removes ambiguity.

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 'and/or' phrasing implies both modes are optional and combinable, which is genuine usage guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no stated prerequisites (e.g. load cases must already exist), and no routing to alternatives such as etabs_define_load_patterns when the user actually wants patterns.

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