etabs_assign_frame_section

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

The annotations already declare `idempotentHint: true` and `destructiveHint: false`, so the description does not need to restate these. However, it adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether the section must be predefined, or that assignment overwrites previous assignments). With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise and structured as a docstring with Args and Returns. Every sentence is necessary, and no extraneous information is present.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basics well. It explains parameters and indicates a return confirmation. Minor gaps include missing prerequisites (e.g., section must be defined) or error scenarios, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero descriptions for parameters (0% coverage). The description fully explains each parameter: `name` can be object or group name, `section_name` is the section to assign, and `item_type` specifies the scope. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 the resource ('frame section property to a frame object'). The tool name reinforces this, and it is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like `etabs_define_frame_section` which defines a section rather than assigning it.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `etabs_assign_area_section` or `etabs_define_frame_section`). While the name and context make the purpose clear, no guidance is provided on selection conditions or prerequisites.

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