etabs_add_frame

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are neutral. The description details the operation (adds frame object) and parameters, but omits potential side effects like duplicate names or invalid coordinates. Still, it adequately conveys the mutation behavior.

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?

Description is a single paragraph plus clear bulleted list for Args and Returns. Efficient and well-structured, though slightly verbose due to full parameter listings.

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?

Covers all 9 parameters and return value. Missing prerequisite information (e.g., model must be open), but given sibling tools for model management, context is reasonably complete.

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?

Every parameter is described in the Args list with meaningful explanations (coordinates, property name default, optional name, coordinate system). This adds significant value beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Add a frame object (beam, column, brace) between two points by coordinates.' It specifies the verb, resource, and types, distinguishing it from siblings like etabs_add_area 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., etabs_assign_frame_section, etabs_define_frame_section). The description assumes domain knowledge and does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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