save_ifc_file

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

Discloses destructive behavior (save can overwrite), and details the reload behavior that makes IFC edits visible. Annotations reinforce destructive nature, and description adds valuable context without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with clear front-loading. First sentence states core purpose, then details arguments. No extraneous information.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description covers all relevant behaviors: save modes, overwrite guard, reload effect. Sibling tools are clearly distinct.

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 descriptions cover 2 of 3 parameters. The tool description adds meaning for 'overwrite' (refuses unless true) and 'reload' (rebuilds scene), complementing the schema. 'output_path' is described similarly.

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 'Save the loaded IFC model' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes two modes (in-place and save-as). It differentiates from sibling tools which are query or execution tools.

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?

Provides clear context for each usage scenario: no arguments for in-place save, pass output_path for save-as, with conditions for overwrite and reload. Does not explicitly state when not to use but is sufficient given uniqueness.

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