etabs_run_design

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive action with no open-world side effects. The description adds behavior beyond that: the analysis prerequisite and the fact that steel/concrete return a member summary "worst first." It stops short of saying what other kinds return or whether the run is long/heavy enough to warrant the background flag.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its exact menu location, then prerequisites, then return behavior. No padding; the only slight redundancy is restating "worst first" that also appears in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the key call-enabling facts: required prior step, design-code context, and summary output shape. It is essentially complete for an action tool, with only the kind-specific return differences unstated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents kind, background, and summary_limit in detail. The description's "worst first" note echoes the summary_limit schema text rather than adding new semantics, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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+resource ("Run design") and pins it to the exact UI path (Design > ... > Start Design/Check), so the agent knows exactly which operation fires. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling etabs_run_analysis or etabs_run_shear_wall_design, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

"Needs analysis results" is a real precondition that tells the agent not to call this before analysis, which is useful sequencing guidance. However, it never names the alternative design entry points (e.g., etabs_run_shear_wall_design) or states when to prefer this over the analysis/get-results flow, so usage is implied rather than routed.

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