ifcx_create_geometry_curve

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

The description minimally says 'attach it' but provides no details on behavioral traits like ownership, side effects, or requirements. With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and fails to disclose essential behavioral information.

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, brief sentence (17 words) that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no unnecessary words.

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 (11 parameters, nested objects, multiple curve types) and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter dependencies, usage patterns, or return values, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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 description does not explain any of the 11 parameters, despite 0% schema description coverage. There is no guidance on how parameters like points, radius, degree, knots, or weights relate to the curve types, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 clearly states it creates curve geometry and lists specific types (polyline, arc, circle, bspline, composite curve), distinguishing it from sibling geometry creation tools like ifcx_create_geometry_brep or ifcx_create_geometry_mesh. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with these alternatives.

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 other geometry creation tools. The description only states what the tool does, without any context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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