etabs_run_concrete_design

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'run the design check.' It doesn't describe side effects, data modifications, or required permissions, but the annotations cover the core destructive nature.

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 at two lines. While it could include more detail about the return value, it avoids fluff and front-loads the core action.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description only says 'Returns: Confirmation.' This is insufficient for a tool that performs a design check; it does not explain what the confirmation contains or where design results are stored. The tool's complexity is low (zero params), but the description lacks important context about post-invocation behavior.

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 tool has no parameters; schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters to document, the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 4 applies as the description does not need to compensate for parameter gaps.

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 explicitly states the action and resource: 'Run the concrete frame design check.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'etabs_run_steel_design' and 'etabs_run_analysis'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., prior analysis run) or conditions under which this tool should or should not be invoked.

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