etabs_assign_frame_stiffness_modifiers

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent with the description. The description adds behavioral details about preset values, override logic, and return structure. It does not contradict annotations. Additional context about performance or side effects is not necessary for this idempotent operation.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, bullet points for target selection, a table for presets, and a detailed Args list. It is appropriately verbose for a tool with 9 parameters but could be slightly more concise by avoiding redundancy (e.g., repeating default values in both preset table and Args list).

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 complexity (9 parameters, 0 required, with presets and overrides), the description is thorough. It covers all aspects: target selection, preset definitions, parameter interactions, and return type. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values in detail, but the description still mentions the structure. No gaps are apparent.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the tool's 'Args' section in the description provides comprehensive explanations for all 9 parameters, including default values, override behavior, and preset options. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, making parameter semantics exceptionally clear.

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 tool applies cracked-section stiffness modifiers to frame objects. It specifies the verb 'Apply' and resource 'frame objects'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'etabs_apply_aci_stiffness_modifiers', which likely focuses only on presets. The description implies differentiation by offering both presets and overrides, but a direct comparison is missing.

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 provides clear guidance on how to select targets via names, group, or all frames, and explains when to use presets versus individual overrides. It does not, however, explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention alternative tools for similar tasks, such as 'etabs_apply_aci_stiffness_modifiers'.

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