ifcx_validate_created_model

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral aspects. It lists validation types but does not indicate side effects (e.g., read-only), permission needs, or what happens on failure. The term 'sanity' is vague.

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?

Single sentence listing validation types; concise but lacks front-loaded purpose statement. Could be better structured with a clear action verb.

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?

Description omits what a 'created model' is, how to interpret results, and what the engine enum values mean. Given many sibling tools, more context is needed for correct selection.

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 coverage is 0%, and description does not explain the two parameters (sessionId and engine). No additional meaning beyond the basic 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 enumerates specific validation types (schema, composition, missing references, geometry sanity, optional real adapter) which clarifies it validates a model. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling validation tools like ifcx_validate_draft or ifcx_validate_ids.

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 other validation tools. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions provided.

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