etabs_define_modal_case

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, which are consistent with the description. The description adds context about modal analysis and code requirements but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply.

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 structured: a concise purpose line, followed by a code reference, recommendations, and an 'Args' section. While slightly verbose (especially the code reference), it remains focused and front-loaded with purpose.

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 presence of an output schema (JSON confirmation) and the tool's definition nature, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, usage context (IS code), and necessary recommendations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of default behavior when case_name is omitted), but overall it's adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description bears full responsibility for parameter semantics. It explains each parameter (case_name, modal_type, max_modes, min_modes, shift_value) with context (e.g., Ritz is faster for RSA, recommended max_modes based on storeys), adding significant meaning beyond the schema defaults and types.

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's purpose: 'Define a modal analysis load case (Eigenvector or Ritz).' It uses a specific verb (define) and resource (modal analysis load case), and distinguishes from sibling tools like etabs_define_load_case and etabs_define_response_spectrum.

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 usage guidance by referencing IS 1893:2016 and recommending parameter values (e.g., max_modes = 3 × number of storeys, minimum 12) and modal type (Ritz is faster for RSA). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions but offers clear context for when to use this tool.

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