Atualizar modelo IFC

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and openWorldHint=true (side effects). The description adds the partial-update behavior, which is useful. However, it does not clarify what happens to the previous version of the model, whether the operation is reversible, or any permission requirements. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds modest contextual value but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

Two concise sentences, zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the key parameter guidance. Every word earns its place; the description is exceptionally efficient.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description leaves gaps: it does not state prerequisites (e.g., the model must exist and be open), what the return value is, or potential side effects beyond the model being replaced. The sibling solibri_list_models could be inferred for getting modelUuid, but this is not explicit. The description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to call it confidently without additional context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that the model must already be open ('ja aberto') and provides a more specific meaning for 'partial' (updating only components present in the file). This adds actionable nuance to the parameter usage.

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 states a specific verb ('Substitui' - replaces) and a specific resource ('um modelo ja aberto' - an already open model) with a new IFC version. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like solibri_open_model (which opens a new model) and solibri_list_models (which lists models). The scope is precise.

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 explicitly identifies the use case: replacing an already open model with a new IFC version. It also provides a clear guideline for the 'partial' parameter ('Use partial=true para atualizar somente os componentes presentes no arquivo'). While it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select it appropriately.

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