ifc_edit_profile

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the non-obvious risk of silent changes to all elements sharing a profile, explains that the refusal reports the count, and states that tessellated geometry is refused outright with no tessellation workaround. This is strong, though it does not mention success-side effects like persistence or undo.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core operation, and each of the three short paragraphs earns its place: purpose, shared-geometry refusal, and tessellated-geometry refusal. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 description covers scope and refusal behavior well, but it leaves a critical gap around how to supply parameters in the params object, and it does not clarify persistence or reversibility. Output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, but the missing param guidance prevents the description from being fully complete.

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%, so the description had to compensate for the three parameters. It explains apply_to_all semantically and warns about shared profiles, but the central 'params' object remains undefined: no valid keys, value types, or example are given. An agent would struggle to construct the primary payload correctly.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Change the parameters of an element's parameterised profile.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that edit attributes, psets, or placements. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: it refuses on shared geometry and tessellated geometry, and it explicitly tells the caller to pass apply_to_all=true only when changing all sharing elements is intended. It lacks explicit alternative-tool routing for those refusal cases, but the when-not conditions are unambiguous.

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