Set element classifications

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing undo granularity ('one undo step per call handled by Archicad'), the null-means-unclassify semantics, the one-item-per-system invariant, and the effect on user-defined property availability. Since annotations already flag destructive/idempotent, the description adds real operational context rather than repeating them.

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?

Front-loads the core action and packs several constraints efficiently, though the middle sentences are dense and read as a run-on of related facts. Every sentence carries information; little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({results: [{guid, item?, system, ok} | {guid, error}]}) and the verification path, covering what an agent needs. Missing only edge-case guidance such as what happens past the 200-assignment/5000-element caps.

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?

Explains the item formats (GUID, localized id, path) and crucially the null case and the system default/inheritance rule, which the 50%-covered schema only partially conveys. It largely duplicates the schema's own item description, so it adds meaning without fully compensating for the uncovered half.

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 and resource ('Classifies elements') and immediately disambiguates it from neighbors like set_property_values and get_element_classifications by scoping the operation to classification systems. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Routes the agent to get_element_classifications for verification ('Check the result with...') and to get_classification_tree for browsing items. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like set_property_values or set_ifc_properties, but the verification loop is clear context.

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