ifcx_create_window_with_void

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects (e.g., model mutation), permissions, or error states. For a creation tool that likely modifies the model, behavioral context is lacking.

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 (13 words), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It is not efficiently informative; key information is omitted.

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 (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far too sparse. It does not mention return values or behavior, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the tool description adds no parameter explanations. With 12 parameters including nested objects (e.g., material), many parameters like hostPath or offsetAlongHost are not self-explanatory.

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 'Create a window occurrence plus a procedural void hint attached to its host.' This specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from generic creation tools like ifcx_create_element. However, 'procedural void hint' is somewhat domain-specific and may not be immediately clear to all users.

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 mention prerequisites (e.g., host must be a wall) or scenarios where an alternative like ifcx_create_element would be preferable.

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