add_entity_facet

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 successfully describes important constraints (the 'only ONE entity facet' rule), error conditions (raises ToolError for second entity in applicability), and the return format. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only vs. write operation.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, important constraint, args, returns, raises) and front-loads the most critical information. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting could be slightly more compact. The information density is high with minimal waste.

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 the complexity (mutation tool with constraints), 0% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, usage constraints, all parameters, return values, and error conditions. The output schema handles return format details, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in detail: spec_id, location (with allowed values), entity_name (with example), predefined_type (optional), and cardinality (with allowed values and context restriction). It adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, including constraints like 'requirements only' for cardinality.

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 specific action ('Add an entity facet') and the target resource ('to a specification'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_attribute_facet or add_material_facet. It provides concrete details about what an entity facet is (IFC entity name) and its purpose within IDS specifications.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it states 'If you need multiple entity types, create separate specifications' and warns about the 'only ONE entity facet per applicability section' constraint. It also clarifies that cardinality is 'requirements only', helping the agent understand context-specific usage.

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