etabs_define_frame_section

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact — dimensions are interpreted in the model's present length units, coupling it to etabs_set_units — but says nothing about overwrite-on-name-collision or validation failures.

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 sentences, zero padding, with the core purpose front-loaded and the units caveat last. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an 11-parameter creation tool with an output schema available and annotations covering the mutation profile, the description adequately frames the two modes and the units behavior. It stops short of the prerequisites and collision semantics an agent would want before a mutating call, but nothing essential to selecting the tool is missing.

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 73% and each dimension parameter already carries its own t2/t3 explanation; the description only adds the mode framing (which params belong to parametric vs. library shapes) and the units convention. That is real but marginal added meaning over an already well-documented schema, so baseline 3 fits.

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+resource ('Define a frame section') and immediately splits it into its two operational modes: parametric concrete/steel shapes versus a library-imported steel shape. That is enough to separate it from etabs_define_area_section and etabs_define_material, though no sibling is named 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 two modes (parametric vs. 'from_library') are described, which implicitly tells the agent which path to take for a given need, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no stated prerequisite (e.g. the material must already exist, or section must precede etabs_assign_section).

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