ifcx_create_geometry_mesh

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects, required permissions, whether it modifies existing structures, or the result of 'attach'. The agent is left blind to important behaviors.

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 sentence, which is concise but oversimplified. It lacks structured information and fails to earn its place by providing essential details. It is underspecified rather than efficiently informative.

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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely inadequate. It does not cover return values, prerequisites, or full behavior, leaving the agent with minimal actionable knowledge.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description only references 'points' and 'indices'. The remaining 9 parameters (sessionId, ownerPath, childName, bodyPath, normals, uvs, lod, material, transform) are unexplained. The description adds negligible value beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool creates a 'mesh body node from points/indices and attach it', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ifcx_create_geometry_brep (brep geometry) and ifcx_create_geometry_curve (curves). However, it lacks clarity on what 'attach' means and to which parent.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ifcx_add_mesh_geometry or ifcx_create_geometry_proc. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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