ifc_move_element

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 that the tool translates elements and reports origin before and after, which gives useful observable behavior. However, it does not mention persistence, whether the operation permanently modifies the model, or how selection limits like max_elements affect the action.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, units are included, and the output behavior is stated efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits how targets are chosen and how guid, query, and max_elements relate. An agent must infer selection semantics and mutation behavior, which is incomplete for a tool with six parameters. The 'reports origin before and after' detail helps, but the selection model remains underspecified.

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 must compensate, but it only adds units for dx/dy/dz ('delta in metres'). The important selection parameters guid, query, and max_elements are entirely unexplained, including how they interact. This leaves a significant semantic gap for a six-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Translate') and resource ('elements'), and specifies units in metres, so an agent can tell this is a translation tool rather than rotation or placement. It also adds an observable output ('Reports origin before and after'), which clarifies the tool's purpose further. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the core operation is clear.

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 use this tool versus ifc_rotate_element, ifc_set_placement, or ifc_set_attribute. The description does not mention how elements are selected via guid, query, or max_elements, nor does it give any conditions or exclusions. Usage context is entirely implied.

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