etabs_define_group

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds parameter context (e.g., color defaults, boolean flags) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether duplicate group names cause errors or if the tool modifies the model globally. It adds some value beyond annotations but is minimal.

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: one sentence for purpose, a structured list for arguments, and a return line. Every element earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema (returning 'Confirmation'), the description is minimally adequate. It lacks context about the model state (e.g., 'Creates a new group in the current ETABS model') and does not explain the 'Confirmation' return format. Sibling tools like etabs_define_load_case are more descriptive.

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 input schema having 0% description coverage, the description provides all parameter semantics. Each parameter gets a brief but clear explanation (e.g., 'Color for the group (-1 for auto)'). This is essential for correct invocation, though explanations are terse.

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 states 'Define a new group.' which clearly indicates the verb (define) and resource (group). It distinguishes from sibling tools like define_area_section or define_load_case by the resource type, but does not explicitly differentiate from other 'define' tools.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., etabs_add_to_group) or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent without guidance on tool selection.

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