Export IFC

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

Annotations declare this is a write/non-idempotent operation, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the return shape {file, translator, scope, durationSeconds} and the warning that big models can take minutes. It does not mention overwrite implications beyond what the schema states, but the timing and return disclosure are real added value.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then return/timing. No filler; every clause carries 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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by describing the return object and the latency caveat. Combined with a 9-parameter, fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by summarizing defaults (translator = first/default, scope = entire project, format = from path extension) and linking the translator parameter to get_ifc_translators. That adds navigational meaning the schema alone does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: saves the model as IFC (.ifc) or ifcXML (.ifcxml). It also distinguishes itself from sibling export tools (export_dwg, export_pdf, export_3d_model) by naming the IFC translator dependency and the scope concept.

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?

Gives clear usage context: default translator is the first/default one and points to get_ifc_translators for choices; enumerates the scope options and their defaults. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer this export over the other export_* siblings, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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