ifcx_create_wall_from_axis

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions creating a wall with specific properties but does not disclose side effects, mutation behavior, required permissions, or what happens to existing data. It lacks details on return values or failure modes.

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 of 16 words, front-loading the main purpose. It is concise but under-informative given the tool's complexity. A second sentence with usage context would improve it without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

With 11 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain the overall workflow, parameter roles, or what the tool produces. For a creation tool with nested objects and type inheritance, much more detail is needed.

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%, and the description only hints at axis, thickness, height, material, and type inheritance. It fails to explain critical parameters like sessionId, parentPath, childName, name, typePath, and properties. No guidance on how parameters interact or format of axis array.

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 specifies 'create a wall occurrence from an axis' with key properties (length/height, mesh, material, type inheritance). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ifcx_create_element by focusing on axis-based wall creation, though it does not explicitly contrast with other creation tools.

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. The description does not indicate prerequisites, when-not to use, or mention related tools such as ifcx_create_element for generic element creation.

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