ifcx_create_geometry_proc

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create procedural geometry hint', implying a write/modify operation but does not mention side effects, required permissions, or model changes. Lacks transparency.

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?

Single sentence, 7 words, very concise. However, front-loads purpose well but omits necessary details; conciseness is good but at the expense of completeness.

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 6 parameters, 4 required, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not cover required parameters, allowed operation values, or return behavior. Incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so description should add meaning. It hints at 'operation' via examples but does not explain required parameters like sessionId, ownerPath, childName, bodyPath, or the 'parameters' object. Minimal added value.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Create' and resource 'procedural geometry hint' with examples (extrusion/sweep/revolve/boolean). It differentiates from siblings like brep, mesh, curve by specifying 'procedural', but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 siblings like ifcx_create_geometry_brep, ifcx_create_geometry_mesh, etc. The description does not specify context or prerequisites.

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