etabs_define_load_combo

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond basic creation, such as error handling or overwrite behavior. With minimal annotation detail, the description misses an opportunity to clarify side effects.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It is concise without being terse, though it could be slightly shorter by omitting the generic 'Returns: Confirmation.'

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?

While the description covers parameters well, it lacks details on return behavior and potential errors. The presence of an output schema may mitigate this, but it is not provided for assessment. For a tool with four parameters, the description is moderately complete.

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?

The description provides explicit parameter semantics in a docstring format, explaining combo_type values (0=LinearAdd, etc.) and the relationship between load_names and scale_factors. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage.

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 combination,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like etabs_define_load_case and etabs_define_load_pattern, which deal with individual load cases and patterns, not combinations.

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like etabs_define_load_case. It only states the action without context of prerequisites or when-not-to-use, which is adequate but not exemplary.

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