ifcx_create_patch_layer

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states 'propose a delta layer' without mentioning side effects, permissions, or what 'propose' entails (e.g., tentative vs. immediate creation). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, concise but under-specified. It does not waste words but fails to provide necessary context, earning a middle score.

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 3 parameters, a nested array, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details about return values, side effects, and usage conditions.

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%, meaning the description should explain parameters. It does not mention sessionId, id, or the changes array at all. The agent gains no understanding beyond the schema structure.

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 proposes a delta layer over an existing draft model, which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, 'propose' could imply tentative action; it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ifcx_add_layer_to_stack or ifcx_create_classification_layer, but the term 'delta layer' is specific.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ifcx_add_layer_to_stack or ifcx_create_layer_stack. The agent has no context for choosing this tool over related siblings.

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