ifc_set_attribute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a mutating operation and discloses a valuable safety behavior: queries exceeding max_elements are refused with the count, preventing accidental model rewrites. It does not mention reversibility or what happens when both guid and query are omitted, but the disclosed safety guard is genuinely useful.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and examples, the second explains targeting modes, and the third adds the safety guard. It is front-loaded, skimmable, and every sentence 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?

The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the core call pattern, including single vs. bulk targeting and the safety limit. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not necessary. The main gaps are exact query syntax and value/attribute constraints, but the essential invocation semantics are present.

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 explain parameters. It usefully covers guid, query, max_elements, and examples of attribute values, but it does not explain the query selector syntax, the accepted value type for 'value', or the full set of legal attribute names. Parameter understanding is therefore partial rather than complete.

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 names a direct, specific operation ('Set one IFC attribute') and gives concrete examples of affected attribute names like Name, Description, ObjectType, and Tag. It clearly distinguishes its single-attribute scope from sibling tools like ifc_set_pset_value, but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of top-tier differentiation.

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 clearly explains the two invocation modes: targeting one element by guid or many by query, and it states the max_elements safety behavior. It does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives such as ifc_patch or ifc_set_pset_value, but the context for setting plain IFC attributes is unambiguous.

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