ifcx_create_classification_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'attach' classification references, without disclosing side effects, permissions required, or what happens to existing classifications. The behavioral impact is unclear.

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 extremely terse (one sentence), but it sacrifices essential detail. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; here it is under-specified.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides almost no context. It does not cover return values, required setup, or data relationships, making it insufficient for correct tool usage.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (sessionId, layerName, targets) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's purpose or expected values, forcing the agent to guess from names alone.

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 tool attaches classification references, listing specific classification systems (CCI/NL-SfB/bSDD-style). However, the verb 'attach' is vague and doesn't clarify if it creates a new layer or adds to existing ones, and it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like ifcx_resolve_bsdd_classification.

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, no prerequisites or context provided. The description lacks any usage directions, which is insufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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