etabs_set_active_dof

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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). It adds context about the parameters but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply. The idempotency is not explicitly mentioned, but the description implies it by stating the action is setting degrees of freedom.

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 concise with two main sentences and a bullet-like list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds parameter details without unnecessary words.

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 6 parameters (none required), the description covers all parameters and provides usage examples. The return value is noted as 'Confirmation'. While error handling or side effects are not mentioned, the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema make this sufficient.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter thoroughly: u1, u2, u3 as translations and r1, r2, r3 as rotations, with axis references. It also provides default values and usage examples, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type/title.

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 ('Set') and the resource ('active degrees of freedom for the analysis'), with examples like '3D, 2D X-Z'. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like 'etabs_set_design_code' or 'etabs_set_units'.

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 specific usage examples (3D space, 2D X-Z plane) and explains the parameter values for each scenario. However, it does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives.

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