etabs_define_load_case

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

Annotations are neutral (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent). The description adds that it defines a new load case, but does not disclose behavior if the name already exists (overwrite/error), prerequisites, or side effects on the model. Adequate but lacks depth.

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, using a structured Args/Returns format. It front-loads the purpose and uses bullet-like lists. Every sentence adds value, though the docstring style is slightly longer than necessary. No wasted text.

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 simple tool (3 params, 1 required, output schema returns confirmation), the description covers the main points: purpose, parameters, and return value. It could mention that the load case is added to the model and what happens on conflict, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand and 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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries the burden. It explains name (just name), case_type with a detailed list of options including descriptions, and modal_case with its condition and default. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 'Define a new load case' and lists the case_type options, distinguishing it from sibling tools like etabs_define_modal_case and etabs_define_response_spectrum by explicitly recommending them for full control. It specifies the verb 'Define' and resource 'load case'.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: for Modal cases it directs to etabs_define_modal_case, and for ResponseSpectrum cases to etabs_define_response_spectrum. It also clarifies that modal_case is only for ResponseSpectrum.

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