etabs_assign_area_section

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description describes assignment, which is consistent. However, it does not mention that assigning a new section overwrites the previous one or any other side effects, but annotations already cover the basic safety profile.

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 concise at 8 lines, with a clear structure: purpose, parameter list, return type. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The tool is simple with 3 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the purpose and parameter semantics. The return value is minimal ('Confirmation'), but sufficient for a straightforward assignment operation. No missing critical details for its use case.

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 includes parameter explanations (e.g., 'name' interpreted based on item_type, 'section_name' as the section to assign) which the input schema lacks. All three parameters are clearly explained beyond schema properties.

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 the action (assign) and resource (area/shell section property to an area object). It distinguishes from sibling tools like etabs_define_area_section (definition vs. assignment) and etabs_assign_frame_section (frame vs. area), though not explicitly. No misleading information.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., etabs_assign_frame_section, etabs_define_area_section). The description only states the function without context for selection.

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