etabs_add_area

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a JSON with the assigned area name and requires ordered points. Annotations are minimal, so the description carries the burden well, though it doesn't mention potential side effects or error conditions.

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?

The description is efficiently structured: a one-line summary, followed by bullet-point usage guidelines, then a labeled Args section. No redundancy or extraneous text.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (6 parameters, 3 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, usage constraints, and return value. It is sufficient for correct tool invocation.

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?

The description explains all 6 parameters in an Args block, including defaults for optional ones (prop_name='Default', name='', csys='Global'). Since the input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully compensates.

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 clearly states 'Add an area object (slab, wall, deck) defined by corner coordinates.' It specifies the verb (add), resource (area object), and scope (types: slab, wall, deck), distinguishing it from sibling tools like etabs_add_frame and etabs_add_point.

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?

Provides clear usage instructions: coordinates must be ordered clockwise/counter-clockwise, at least 3 points, and property name default. However, it lacks explicit comparison to alternative tools for adding frames or points, leaving the agent to infer when to use this one.

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