etabs_define_area_section

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

The description indicates a write operation ('define') and provides basic behavior. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, so no contradiction. However, it lacks details on idempotency or whether duplicate names overwrite existing definitions.

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, with four sentences covering purpose, arguments, and return value. It uses a clear Args/Returns structure without unnecessary words.

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 that the tool has an output schema (indicated as present), the description is complete: it explains the purpose, all parameters, and the return confirmation. Enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains all five parameters clearly, including examples, allowed values, and the mapping for shell_type (1-6). This adds significant 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 clearly states the tool defines area/shell section properties for slabs, walls, decks, using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like etabs_add_area and etabs_assign_area_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?

The description mentions that the material must be previously defined, providing a usage prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to define a section vs assign it.

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