revit_request_user_snip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that this is an interactive, user-driven operation requiring a human at the machine, which distinguishes it from automated siblings. However, it omits that the call blocks until the user finishes, what happens on timeout, and any output characteristics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for what it attempts, though brevity here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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, blocking tool with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin: an agent cannot tell what the prompt is used for, how long it waits, or which document/instance it targets. The existing output schema covers return values, so that omission is forgivable, but the invocation contract is not.

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% across four parameters (port, prompt, timeout, doc_name), so the description is the only place semantics could be added, and it adds none. The required 'prompt' string, the 90-second default timeout, and doc_name/port targeting are all left unexplained.

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 states a specific verb (requests) and resource (the user in Revit to snip a screen region and annotate), which is clear and actionable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as revit_capture_screenshot or revit_request_user_selection, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The word 'proactively' hints that this triggers a user-facing interaction rather than an automated capture, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this over revit_capture_screenshot, which is exactly the ambiguity the description should resolve.

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