ifc_set_extrusion_depth

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a 'sharing guard' but does not explain what it entails (e.g., side effects, permissions, reversibility). It also does not indicate whether setting the depth modifies the element permanently or if it triggers re-rendering. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the core action, which is efficient. However, it under-specifies crucial details expected in a tool description, so brevity is achieved at the cost of usefulness. It is not egregiously verbose, but it misses opportunities to add value.

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 there are 3 parameters, no annotations, and the tool performs a mutation, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain the sharing guard's implications, the role of 'apply_to_all', or any side effects. Though an output schema exists, the overall context for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 for the missing parameter meanings. It fails to explain 'guid', 'depth', or 'apply_to_all'. The only hint is that depth is in metres, but even that is not tied to the parameter. An agent cannot infer parameter semantics from this description.

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 clearly states the action (set) and the resource (extrusion depth) with a unit (metres). It is specific enough to convey the core purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like ifc_edit_profile beyond a passing reference, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Same sharing guard as ifc_edit_profile' gives a hint about a constraint but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. There is no context about typical use cases or situations where this tool is preferred.

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