ifc_set_pset_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose an important behavioral trait: it 'fails loudly rather than creating a near-miss duplicate'. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, whether existing values are overwritten, or what the output contains.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated with a clear reason in the second sentence.

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 leaves six parameters undocumented and does not explain how guid/query/max_elements govern target selection. The prerequisite hint is valuable but not sufficient for reliable invocation, especially since annotations are absent.

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 the description only indirectly clarifies pset and property. It says nothing about guid, query, value, or max_elements, leaving the agent to guess how the element is selected or how value should be formatted.

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 one property') and the target ('inside an existing property set'), making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast siblings like ifc_add_pset, but the phrase 'existing property set' helps distinguish it from pset creation/removal.

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 an explicit precondition: run ifc_list_property_names first, with a rationale about exporter naming behavior and failure mode. It lacks explicit statements about when not to use this tool versus alternatives like ifc_set_attribute, but the provided guidance is actionable and context-rich.

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