etabs_instances

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds the crucial global-state disclosure that switching changes 'which one every other tool acts on' — a side effect no annotation conveys. It stops short of describing what happens to the previously active instance or the confirm/close_etabs semantics (those live in the schema).

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 waste. The operational scope is front-loaded in sentence one and the motivating use case follows in sentence two.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers all three action modes plus their motivation. The only gap is the safety sequence around 'remove' (confirm plus close_etabs), which is split off into the schema rather than surfaced in prose.

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 50%: name and close_etabs carry descriptions, while action and confirm do not. The description supplies the intent behind 'use' (retargeting every other tool), but adds no syntax or constraint detail for confirm or for removal of the active instance, so it only marginally compensates.

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?

The first sentence states three specific verbs (list / switch / remove) over a named resource (the ETABS instances this server drives) and ties them to the action enum. It also implicitly separates itself from neighbors like etabs_list_installations and etabs_connect by scoping to instances this server manages.

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 'Typical use' sentence gives concrete scenarios (side-by-side comparison, copying data between models), which implies when the tool is relevant. However, it never says when NOT to use it, nor does it route the agent to alternatives such as etabs_connect, etabs_disconnect, or etabs_list_installations.

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