revit_request_user_selection

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 meaningful behavior: the HUD button flashes and waits for clicks, single vs. multiple click semantics differ ('Finish' required for multiple), and the default wait is 90 seconds. It omits what happens on timeout (error vs. empty result) and whether the call blocks the agent for the full duration, which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block with no filler. The behavioral framing sentence and the parameter block both earn their space, though the description could be slightly tighter.

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?

For an interactive, annotation-free tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers the interaction mechanics and most parameters adequately. It is only short on timeout-outcome semantics and the undocumented port/doc_name parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents four of six parameters with examples and defaults (prompt instruction, category filtering with ['Rooms','Walls'], multiple click behavior, timeout default). It leaves port and doc_name entirely unexplained, which matters for a multi-instance Revit tool, but the main parameters are well covered.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('requests the user in Autodesk Revit to select elements') and, via the HUD/'Pick Elements' detail, makes clear this is an interactive selection request rather than a read of existing selection. It never explicitly contrasts with the sibling revit_get_selection, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 'proactively requests' framing implies when the tool is appropriate (needing user input before continuing), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives. Usage context is only implied.

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