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

Annotations already declare the write, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world profile, so the description adds real value on top: it says a new revision is created, an effect report is returned, keep_content changes what physically moves versus what keeps its world place, and the closing line warns that success does not mean the job is verified. The jargon-heavy references (PLAN_REQUIRED, deviation, keeps_place) are unexplained, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action, which is good, but the middle is a dense run of internal jargon separated by semicolons and the final aphorism 'A call that succeeds is not a job that's done' is cryptic rather than informative. Several clauses could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

For a nine-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials an agent needs: the revision model, the effect report, the dry_run/plan_id protocol, and the keep_content fork. It stops short of describing what the effect report actually contains, but the annotation set and full schema coverage fill most of the remaining gap.

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 100%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema, including keep_content and expect_beyond. The description largely restates keep_content's consequence and the expect_beyond = n_beyond linkage rather than adding new semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 first clause states a specific verb and resource: 'Raises or lowers an IfcBuildingStorey with its content and updates Elevation.' That is concrete enough to distinguish it from the generic sibling move_elements, though it never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is left partly to inference from the resource noun.

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?

It gives clear procedural guidance: dry_run first to preview, then run plan_id with expect_beyond matching n_beyond, and it flags the PLAN_REQUIRED / PLAN_CHANGED conditions. What it lacks is an explicit 'use this instead of move_elements when...' exclusion, so an agent must infer when a storey-level move is preferred over an element-level move.

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