etabs_assign_point_load

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is mutable but not destructive (destructiveHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the 'replace' parameter behavior—whether to replace or add loads—which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or prerequisites, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 and well-structured, using an Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 has 10 parameters, 2 required, no output schema details beyond 'Confirmation', and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It explains all parameters and the replace behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, units, and prerequisites (e.g., joint existence). The output is vaguely described as 'Confirmation', which may suffice but could be more specific.

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 description entirely carries the burden of explaining the 10 parameters. It clearly defines each parameter's purpose: name (point object), load_pattern, f1/f2/f3 (forces in directions), m1/m2/m3 (moments about axes), replace (replace vs add), and item_type (scope). This adds necessary meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 starts with 'Assign point loads/moments to a joint object,' which is a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like etabs_assign_frame_load or etabs_assign_area_load, which assign loads to different element types.

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 vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear from the name and first sentence, no guidance is provided on when not to use it or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., existing joint or load pattern).

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