etabs_run_analysis

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

Discloses significant side effects beyond the annotations: the model is re-saved before running and locked afterwards, and large runs can take minutes. These mutation/locking traits are exactly the behavioral context annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not convey, and they are stated plainly.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites/side effects, then the timeout tip. No filler and every clause carries information.

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?

Covers prerequisites, the save/lock side effects, and the timeout strategy; return values are handled by the existing output schema, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description's background=true tip largely repeats the schema's own 'for big models or clients with short tool timeouts' wording and adds no new syntax or constraints for cases/save_as.

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 and resource ('Run the analysis') with a UI mapping ('Analyze > Run Analysis'), making it unambiguously distinct from siblings like etabs_run_design or etabs_analysis_status. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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 prerequisite ('ETABS needs a saved model') and a conditional recommendation ('use background=true to avoid client timeouts' for large models). It does not explicitly contrast against etabs_run_design or explain when NOT to run analysis, but the usage context is strong.

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