revit_set_active_instance

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 the key behavioral trait: this mutates session-scoped routing state that affects every later call. However, it omits what happens if the port/title is invalid, whether the binding persists across sessions, and any concurrency or auth considerations.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action and its consequence front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the effect on subsequent calls is covered. But for a state-mutating session-routing tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage on two optional params, the unresolved selection/precedence semantics leave the agent under-informed.

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 both parameters are documented only by the parenthetical 'by port or document title', which maps loosely to port and doc_name. It does not state whether the two are mutually exclusive, which wins if both are supplied, or that omitting both is legal (required=0, both nullable) — meaningfully ambiguous for a binding call.

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 ('Binds') and resource ('this session to a specific Revit instance/model'), plus the two selection keys (port, document title). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like revit_list_instances or revit_get_active_model, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 second sentence ('All subsequent operations will execute on this instance') implies this is a prerequisite/setup call, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus revit_list_instances or revit_get_active_model, nor what to do if the binding fails. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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