ifcx_explain_patch_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies data, or what side effects occur. The agent cannot infer safety or required permissions.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the core idea. However, it is overly terse and omits necessary details, making it less effective than it could be if slightly expanded.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe return values, whether the operation is safe, or any prerequisites. The tool's behavior is poorly specified for an agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The tool description does not explain what baseSessionId and patchSessionId represent or their expected format. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but insufficient without further context.

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 verb 'explain' and the resource 'how a patch draft changes a base draft', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not define what a 'patch draft' or 'base draft' is, nor does it differentiate from similar tools like ifcx_explain_layer_history.

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 compared to alternatives. There are no explicit prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints about when it is appropriate to invoke this tool.

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