etabs_new_model

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description supplies the missing target of that destruction — the currently open model — and the schema-backed confirm parameter discloses that unsaved work is lost. That is real added context beyond the generic hint, though error behavior and connection requirements remain unstated.

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 front-loaded sentences with zero padding: the action and its destructive side-effect come first, then the unit convention. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 a rich annotation set, a full output schema, and template/confirm semantics documented in the schema, the description only needs to carry the destructive scope and unit convention — both are present. Minor gaps are prerequisites and failure modes, which are not essential here.

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 a moderate 70%, and the description contributes one cross-cutting rule ('Lengths are in the chosen units') that disambiguates the numeric-or-string spacing/height inputs. The undocumented grid_lines_x/y and number_of_stories parameters receive no explanation anywhere, so it does not fully compensate.

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?

State a specific verb and resource ('Start a new model') and the parenthetical 'replaces the open one' distinguishes it from etabs_open_model. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling etabs_generate_building, which also creates a model, so the differentiation is incomplete.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this when you want a fresh model. There is no explicit when-to-use vs etabs_generate_building, no stated prerequisite (e.g. an active connection/instance), and no guidance on the confirm gate beyond the schema text.

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