etabs_delete_results

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining that deleting results 'unlocks the model,' which is important behavioral context. Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent hints; the description complements these without contradiction.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences. The first sentence conveys the action and effect, and the second indicates the return value. No superfluous information.

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 no parameters, clear annotations, and an output schema (which describes returns), the description is fully complete. It covers the core behavior and outcome without missing necessary details.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description implies no parameters are needed, which is consistent with the empty schema. No additional parameter-specific information is required.

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 action ('Delete all analysis results') and the effect ('unlocking the model'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like etabs_delete_object by specifying 'analysis results' instead of objects.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this should be used after analysis is complete or before modifying the model, nor does it compare with etabs_run_analysis or etabs_setup_results.

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