etabs_define_response_spectrum

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true (safe to call multiple times) and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: scale factor formulas (Z·I·g/2R), code references (IS 1893 Cl. 7.7.5, ASCE 7 Sec. 12.9.1), default values (ecc_ratio=0.05, modal_combo='CQC'), and explanation of directional combination. This goes beyond annotations to fully describe the tool's behavior.

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: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by code references, formula explanation, and a bulleted Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the format is easy to scan. Despite length due to parameter count, there is no redundancy or unnecessary 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 tool's complexity (14 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema provided), the description covers all necessary information: standards, formulas, default values, parameter meanings, and even references a sibling tool for scale factor calculation. The return type is mentioned ('JSON confirmation'), which is sufficient for a define action.

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 burden. It explains all 14 parameters: case_name, modal_case, direction flags, scale factors with formulas, modal and directional combination rules, eccentricity ratio, and function names. This provides essential meaning that the schema lacks.

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 starts with 'Define a multi-directional Response Spectrum Analysis (RSA) load case,' which clearly states the tool's action (define) and resource (RSA load case). It distinguishes from sibling tool etabs_set_is1893_seismic_params by noting that tool computes scale factors automatically, while this one requires precomputed values. This specificity avoids confusion.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: for defining RSA load cases per IS 1893 and ASCE 7 standards. It provides guidance on scale factor calculation and references the alternative etabs_set_is1893_seismic_params for automatic computation. It recommends CQC and SRSS combinations, giving clear context for appropriate usage.

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