ifcx_resolve_geometry_tier

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 only states the action without explaining side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what 'resolve' entails (e.g., does it mutate the draft? Is it idempotent?). The transparency is minimal.

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 with 10 words, which is efficient. However, the word 'one' is somewhat redundant and could be removed for tighter phrasing. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded with the key verb and object.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema), the description lacks essential context: prerequisites (must have a draft?), workflow position (later step after creation?), or what 'resolve' means operationally. The description is too sparse to fully guide 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, and the tool description adds no parameter details. It only hints at the 'tier' parameter via 'geometry/semantics tier table' but does not explain the enum values or the 'sessionId' parameter. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('Resolve') and the object ('one generated geometry/semantics tier table from a draft'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'ifcx_validate_tier_tables' or 'ifcx_export_tiered', though the verb 'resolve' could be more specific. The purpose is well communicated.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ifcx_validate_tier_tables' or 'ifcx_create_geometry_mesh'. The description does not provide when-not-to-use context or mention any dependencies or prerequisites (e.g., having a draft).

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