add_property_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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'Add'), specifies that 'property_set' is required for valid export, documents the return format, and mentions error conditions ('Raises: ToolError'). It doesn't cover all potential behaviors like rate limits or auth needs, but provides substantial context beyond basic parameters.

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 note, args, returns, raises) and front-loaded key information. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential details. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'IMPORTANT' note into the main description, but overall it's efficiently organized without wasted words.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (implied by the 'Returns' section), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, critical requirements, all parameter meanings, return values, and error conditions. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, and it provides all necessary context for effective tool use.

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 fully compensate. It does so excellently by explaining all 7 parameters with clear semantics: 'spec_id' as specification identifier, 'location' with allowed values, 'property_name' with examples, 'property_set' as required for export with examples, 'data_type' as IFC type, 'value' as required value/pattern, and 'cardinality' with allowed values. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('property facet to a specification'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_attribute_facet' or 'add_material_facet' by specifying it's for property facets, not other types. The description explicitly mentions what it does rather than just restating the name.

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 some implied usage guidance by noting that 'property_set parameter is REQUIRED for valid IDS export,' which suggests when this tool is necessary for compliance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_attribute_facet' or other sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required parameter.

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