etabs_define_response_spectrum

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so it's a non-destructive but non-idempotent mutation. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of prerequisites (existing modal case), side effects (creates two model objects), or what happens on re-invocation with the same case name.

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?

Single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and both created artifacts. No waste, though extremely sparse given the tool's complexity.

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?

A 13-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions, no parameter guidance in the description, and no behavioral disclosure. The presence of an output schema helps slightly, but the definition is far too thin for an agent to invoke correctly without guessing at ASCE 7-16 parameter meanings.

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 coverage is only 8% (only scale_factor has a description). With 13 parameters and near-zero schema documentation, the description must compensate but instead adds nothing—no meaning for R, Ss, S1, Tl, site_class, direction, eccentricity, case_name, or function_name.

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 two resources (ASCE 7-16 response spectrum function and a response-spectrum load case). Clearly distinct from siblings like etabs_define_seismic_load and etabs_scale_response_spectrum, though it doesn't explicitly name those relationships.

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?

Implied usage: call this to create a response spectrum function plus load case before scaling (etabs_scale_response_spectrum) or running analysis. No explicit when/when-not guidance, prerequisites (e.g., modal case must exist), or named alternatives.

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