etabs_set_units

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but readOnlyHint=false, confirming the tool modifies state. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond the fact that it sets units. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or that it only affects display units, which would be helpful.

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: one sentence for purpose, a clear Args section with enumerated values, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 simple tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description is complete enough for an AI agent to use correctly. It covers parameter values and return type. Minor omission: it could clarify that units are display-only, not internal model units.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'units' parameter, but the description compensates by listing all 16 possible values with a clear format. This provides meaning well beyond the bare schema, making parameter selection unambiguous.

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 the active display units') and the target ('ETABS model'). Among many sibling tools starting with 'etabs_set_', this one uniquely addresses unit setting, distinguishing it from others like set_design_code or set_stories.

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 implies when to use it (when you need to change display units) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. Given its simplicity, the usage context is clear but lacks formal guidelines.

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