Open ETABS and prepare a model without desktop automation

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds real substance beyond that: existing files and unsaved geometry are never reset or overwritten, a new model is saved under a unique file, new_model=True spawns a separate ETABS process, the tool performs no clicking/typing/window creation, and authentication is completed manually by the user.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the when-to-use condition, then the mode branching — a sensible order. A few clauses restate the title's 'without desktop automation' point ('does not click, type, arrange other apps, or create view windows'), which is mild redundancy but still earns some place as a scope boundary.

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 needn't be described, and safety behavior is well covered. However, for a 9-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description leaves the geometric parameters and the meaning of 'instance' (a sibling list_instances exists) unaddressed, so an agent must guess how to target an existing process.

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 0% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the two decision-critical parameters well (new_model and omitting instance) and supplies the unit ('grid in metres') for the grid parameters, but stories, spacing_x/spacing_y, grid_lines_x/grid_lines_y, story_height and first_story_height are never individually explained, nor is it stated whether the grid parameters are ignored when new_model=False on a loaded model.

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: opens ETABS if needed and prepares a usable session, with the distinguishing constraint 'without computer-use'. That constraint separates it cleanly from siblings like execute_code and render_model_view, so an agent can pick it 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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Call this before creating geometry on the Start Page or when ETABS is closed.' It then branches the usage by mode — new_model=True (omit instance) for a new building, new_model=False for a loaded model — which is exactly the decision an agent must make.

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