etabs_assign_pier_label

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context that it is for wall piers and that item_type can be 'Object', 'Group', or 'SelectedObjects', but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling or limitations.

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, with a single-line purpose followed by a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 description covers the basic function and parameters, and an output schema exists. However, it misses context about appropriate use cases compared to similar assign tools, and does not explain the concept of a pier label or the full behavior of item_type.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the parameter descriptions in the Args section provide minimal meaning: 'Object name', 'Name of the pier label', and the options for item_type. However, they lack depth, such as valid string formats or the relationship between parameters.

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 that the tool assigns a pier label to an area or line object for wall piers, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like etabs_assign_spandrel_label implicitly by focusing on piers, but could explicitly differentiate.

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 provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as etabs_assign_spandrel_label or etabs_assign_diaphragm. It only describes what it does, not the context or exclusions.

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