etabs_define_material

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (not read-only) and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds minimal behavior beyond 'Define'. It does not disclose what happens if the material already exists (e.g., error or overwrite), nor any side effects. The return is vaguely 'Confirmation'. With annotations conveying basic traits, the description adds little extra transparency.

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 efficient: a brief purpose statement followed by a bullet-style parameter list and a one-line returns note. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, the 'Returns' line is minimal and could be slightly more descriptive, but overall it's well-structured.

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 5 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers parameter meanings and return type. However, it misses important context like 'the material is added to the current model' or what happens if a duplicate name is used. For a structural engineering domain, additional context about prerequisites (e.g., model must exist) would be helpful. Overall, adequate but incomplete.

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?

Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully carries the burden. It lists all 5 parameters with explanations, examples (e.g., '4000Psi', 'Grade 50'), and enumerates allowed values for material_type (Steel, Concrete, etc.). This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 material property' with specific verb and resource. It provides examples for name, material_type, standard, and grade, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling define tools like etabs_define_area_section or etabs_define_frame_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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, e.g., that it should be used before assigning material to sections, or if prerequisites like an open model are required. However, the purpose is clear enough from the name and context, so it's adequate but lacking strong guidance.

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