ifc_add_pset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait: the operation is create-or-extend, so an existing pset is not destroyed. However, it does not state whether existing property values are overwritten, what side effects occur, or what happens when required inputs are invalid.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is as concise as a description can be while conveying the core create-or-extend behavior.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and a description that only covers the pset/properties core. Missing context includes how the target entity is resolved, what query/guid/max_elements control, and error or edge-case behavior, so an agent cannot reliably call it without inspecting the output schema or experimenting.

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 there are five parameters, but the description only loosely maps to pset and properties. guid, query, and max_elements are left completely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and names the resource ('property set'), and adds the key nuance that existing sets are extended rather than replaced. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ifc_set_pset_value or ifc_remove_pset.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an open IFC model or how the target element is selected. The 'extend if exists' behavior implies a use case, but the conditions are left to inference.

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