etabs_assign_diaphragm

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and not destructive. The description adds that it assigns a constraint to area or point objects, which is mild behavior detail. However, it does not disclose error handling, idempotency behavior, or what happens if the diaphragm name is invalid. It adds some context beyond annotations but not richly.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences for purpose, a compact args list, and a returns statement. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff. 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks error scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., the diaphragm must already be defined), and broader workflow context. Returns 'Confirmation' is vague but acceptable for a simple assignment with output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains each parameter: name as 'Object name or group name', diaphragm_name as 'Name of the diaphragm to assign', and item_type with explicit allowed values ('Object', 'Group', 'SelectedObjects'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb-resource combination: 'Assign a diaphragm constraint to an area or point object.' It directly states the action and target, distinguishing it from sibling tools like assign_area_load or assign_frame_section.

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 other assignment tools (e.g., assign_area_load). The description does not mention prerequisites, when it should be avoided, or how it fits into a larger workflow. The context of sibling tools is provided externally but not leveraged by the description.

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