ifcx_add_layer_to_stack

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it fails to do so. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur, or any permission requirements. The terms 'draft session' and 'federated layer stack' are undefined.

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?

The description is only one sentence, which could be concise, but it sacrifices essential clarity. It is front-loaded but under-specified, lacking necessary detail to be useful.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no schema coverage, no output schema, and a specialized domain), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the concept of a 'draft session', the purpose of the layer stack, or how this tool relates to siblings like ifcx_create_layer_stack or ifcx_reorder_layers.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It does not mention any of the four parameters (stackId, sessionId, name, position) or their roles. No value is added beyond the schema structure.

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 the verb 'Add' and resource 'draft session to a federated layer stack', which conveys a basic purpose. However, it is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like ifcx_reorder_layers or ifcx_create_layer_stack. The term 'draft session' is ambiguous and not explained.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The single sentence offers no usage direction.

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