ifcx_validate_ids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose whether validation mutates the draft, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It only states the action without behavioral context.

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 one sentence with no extraneous text, achieving conciseness. However, it is too brief to be fully effective, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 four parameters, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what validation returns, how to interpret results, or any preconditions (e.g., session must exist).

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%, yet the description adds no parameter information. The four parameters (sessionId, idsXml, locale, createBcf) are not explained; their purposes and formats are left entirely to the schema, which is insufficient for an AI agent.

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?

Description clearly states the action (validate), the resource (draft against IDS XML), and the technology (IFClite, IFCX draft accessor). It differentiates from sibling validation tools like ifcx_validate_created_model and ifcx_validate_ifc5_compliance by specifying IDS XML as the validation standard.

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 alternative validation tools (e.g., ifcx_validate_created_model, ifcx_validate_ifc5_compliance, ifcx_detect_conflicts). The description fails to specify prerequisites or context such as needing a draft and IDS XML.

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