etabs_add_point

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description confirms it creates a point and returns a JSON with the name, but doesn't elaborate on side effects or error conditions. It adds some context but not substantial beyond defaults.

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 compact, with a clear intro sentence followed by a bullet-like list of parameters. Each sentence is informative, though a bit more structure (e.g., separating args from returns) could improve readability. Still, it's well-organized for its length.

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 tool adds a simple point object, the description covers inputs and output adequately. It notes return value (JSON with name). Completeness is good for the complexity level, though it could mention units precision or coordinate system details.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains coordinates are in current units, name is optional (defaulting if blank), and csys defaults to 'Global'. This provides useful meaning beyond the schema's property titles and types.

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 uses the verb 'Add' with a specific resource 'point (joint) object at specified coordinates'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like etabs_add_area and etabs_add_frame, which add different object types.

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 versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident for adding a point. There are no exclusions or context provided, so it meets a minimally acceptable level.

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