etabs_select

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the mutating-but-safe profile is already covered. The description adds that selection state affects other tools and that results come back grouped by type, which is useful context, but it omits what a 'clear'/'invert' actually discards or any permission/state caveats.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core operation comes first and the downstream consequence follows. Slightly terse given the parameter complexity, but nothing is wasted.

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 read/change duality is stated. However, with five optional parameters at 20% coverage and no clarification of the action/kind/names/deselect interplay, an agent lacks enough to invoke non-default actions confidently.

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 20%, and the description mentions none of the five parameters (kind, group, names, action, deselect) or how they interact — e.g. that 'names' pairs with action='objects'. Only the schema's own action description carries any meaning, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 description gives a concrete verb+resource pair ('change or read the selection') with an intuitive analogy to clicking in the ETABS window, so an agent understands the operation. It does not, however, differentiate from related siblings like etabs_find_objects or etabs_list_objects, which also deal with object sets.

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?

It offers a real usage signal — 'Many tools accept selected=true to act on it' — explaining why selection matters downstream. But it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative tool or exclusion, so routing is mostly implied.

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