etabs_scale_response_spectrum

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotence. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the scale-then-optionally-rerun-and-verify sequence. However, it omits the model-unlock and results-deletion side effects, which only surface in the 'confirm' parameter description rather than the tool 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 compact lines with the objective front-loaded and the optional secondary step trailing. No filler; every clause carries meaning.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description is nearly complete for a 6-parameter mutation tool, with the only real gap being clarification of the undocumented case-name parameters.

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 only 50%: rerun, target, and confirm are documented in the schema, while rs_case, elf_case, and direction are not. The description does not compensate by clarifying that rs_case/elf_case are the response-spectrum and ELF case names, nor does it explain the direction parameter's role.

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 (scale), a specific resource (response-spectrum case), and the exact engineering objective (base shear reaches the ELF base shear, citing ASCE 7-16 12.9.1.4). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like etabs_define_response_spectrum or etabs_define_seismic_load without opening any 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?

The phrase 'then optionally re-run and verify' implies the rerun path, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an existing ELF case must already be defined/run). Usage is inferable from context but not spelled out.

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