etabs_define_wind_load

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds that it creates an automatic pattern and explains the code/fields mechanism, but does not cover auth needs, duplicate-handling, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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, front-loaded with purpose and the UI path, then a compact note on code parameterisation. No filler or redundancy.

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 a 14-parameter write tool, the description is complete on the unique aspects (auto wind, ASCE vs other codes, UI path) and output schema covers return values. However, the low schema coverage on parameters means an agent lacks semantic detail for most inputs, leaving a moderate gap.

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 36% (5 of 14 params). The description clarifies the relationship between 'code' and 'fields', which is useful, but leaves many parameters (kd, kzt, exposure, top_story, leeward_cp, gust_factor, windward_cp, bottom_story) without explanation in either schema or description. It only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 'automatic wind load pattern applied to diaphragms', plus the exact UI path. This distinguishes it from sibling load-definition tools like etabs_define_seismic_load and etabs_define_load_patterns.

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?

Gives context for the 'code' parameter and how to handle non-ASCE codes via 'fields', but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as etabs_define_seismic_load or etabs_define_load_patterns. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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