ifcx_add_procedural_geometry

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or return values. The minimal description fails to convey what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise in length but not in value. It omits essential information, so brevity is not an asset here.

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 has 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context for how to use the tool or what it achieves.

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?

The schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about parameter meanings or expected values. The parameters are completely undocumented, leaving the agent unable to construct correct invocations.

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 it is an alias for ifcx_create_geometry_proc, implying it performs the same function, but does not explicitly state what that function is. The tool name 'add_procedural_geometry' hints at the purpose, but the description lacks a clear verb-resource statement.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ifcx_create_geometry_proc or other geometry-related tools. The description only says it's an alias, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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