etabs_define_seismic_load

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

Annotations already disclose mutation (readOnlyHint=false), non-idempotency, non-destructiveness, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful side-effect context by stating it creates both the Quake pattern and its load case, but it omits permissions, prerequisites, and the consequence of repeated calls despite non-idempotency.

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 with zero filler; the core action and ETABS UI location are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the concrete side effect of creating a pattern and load case.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and mutation semantics need not be repeated. However, for a 16-parameter tool with all-optional arguments, the description omits prerequisites (unlocked model, units, existing stories) and default/interaction behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 69%, leaving parameters like name, importance, user_period, eccentricity, and site_class without schema descriptions. The tool description provides no parameter-level meaning, default behavior, or interaction guidance (e.g., period source vs ct_type/user_period), so it does not compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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'), resource ('ASCE 7-16 equivalent-lateral-force seismic load pattern'), UI path, and side effect of creating the Quake pattern and load case. It is clear but does not name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like etabs_define_load_patterns, etabs_define_wind_load, or etabs_define_response_spectrum.

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 specific standard and load type imply the use case (defining an ASCE 7-16 ELF seismic pattern), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as the generic load pattern or response spectrum tools. Prerequisites like an unlocked model are absent.

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