etabs_set_design_code

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, so the description adds that it returns a confirmation. However, it does not disclose any side effects or behavior beyond idempotency, such as whether the change persists to the model or requires saving. With annotations covering the core safety profile, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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: two sentences plus structured Args/Returns. No fluff, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for clarity). Still, every sentence is informative.

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 simplicity (2 string params, idempotent, returns confirmation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains both parameters and the return value. No gaps for the intended usage.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by specifying that design_type is 'Steel' or 'Concrete' and provides example code names like 'AISC 360-16' and 'ACI 318-19'. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's plain string type.

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 'Set the design code for steel or concrete design' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'etabs_run_concrete_design' and 'etabs_run_steel_design' which are for running designs, not setting the code.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., model must be open) or when not to use it. It lacks context about the typical workflow, such as that this tool should be called before running design.

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