ifcx_compose_stage

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only hints at composition ('Compose one draft') but does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is destructive, how inheritance resolution affects the draft, or any session requirements.

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?

Extremely concise (single sentence) and front-loaded with the action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, leaning toward under-specification rather than efficient clarity.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description leaves out crucial context: what an 'ECS-style stage' is, what 'resolved inheritance' entails, and what the output represents. Incomplete for an agent to invoke effectively.

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 carries full burden for 'sessionId'. It only mentions 'draft' indirectly, providing no format, source, or example values for sessionId.

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?

Clearly articulates that the tool composes a draft into an ECS-style stage with resolved inheritance. Distinguishes from siblings like ifcx_compose_federated and ifcx_compose_world_transform, but the jargon may reduce clarity for some agents.

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 (e.g., ifcx_compose_federated). Does not mention prerequisites, session state, or conditions for invocation.

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