etabs_generate_building

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-reversible operation. The description adds the sequencing context (lateral loads then analysis) but does not itself warn that an open model is replaced or that confirm is required — that critical behavior lives only in the confirm schema description.

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 the complete inventory of what gets built, followed by the next-step guidance. The long enumeration is dense but earns its place for a tool that performs roughly a dozen operations; nothing is wasted.

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 and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values. It covers scope and workflow well; the only real gap is that the model-replacement/confirm behavior is not surfaced in the description itself, though it is captured in the schema.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description enumerates output categories (grids, slabs, piers) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides for bays, story_heights, and section inputs.

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 ('Build') and resource ('a complete regular building'), then enumerates exactly what is created: grids, stories, materials, sections, frames, braces/shear walls, slabs, supports, diaphragm, load patterns, and combinations. This distinguishes it cleanly from the granular siblings like etabs_new_model, etabs_set_stories, etabs_add_frames, and etabs_define_combinations that it subsumes.

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 a clear forward workflow ('Follow with lateral loads (etabs_define_seismic_load ...), then analysis'), telling the agent what to call next. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this one-shot generator over the granular building tools, so the boundary against those siblings is left implicit.

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