etabs_define_frame_section

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only (modifies model) and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral details, such as whether it creates a new section or updates an existing one, or any side effects like dependency on materials already being defined.

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: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a parameter list grouped logically and shape-specific notes. No redundant or unclear sentences.

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?

Despite missing usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, the description adequately explains the parameters and shape dependencies. It mentions that material must be previously defined and gives example section names. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter, including shape-specific requirements (e.g., depth/diameter for circular, flange dimensions for I/Tee/Channel). It adds meaning beyond the schema titles, making it easy for agents to determine which parameters are needed for a given shape.

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 frame section properties (beams/columns) with specific shapes. It is distinct from siblings like etabs_assign_frame_section (which assigns an already defined section) and etabs_get_frame_sections (retrieves existing sections), but does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that sections must be defined before assignment, nor does it indicate that defining a section with an existing name might overwrite or error.

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