click_revit_dialog_button

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does well: it discloses the authorization envelope (ordinary warnings fall inside the existing user task, destructive ones do not), warns against label guessing, and explains the waiting_for_dialog follow-up flow. It falls short of a 5 because it does not say what a successful click returns or how to tell a rejected click from an applied one.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then safety boundaries, then recovery. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the safety sentence is a dense run-on that packs several policies into one line.

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 a four-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing safety profile, the snapshot freshness prerequisite, and the post-dialog recovery path. Only the return shape and failure/error semantics remain unaddressed, which is a modest gap.

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 only 25% — just 'reason' is documented — so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. 'Requires a fresh snapshot' implicitly ties snapshot_hash to freshness and 'observed button' implies button_id must come from get_revit_dialogs, but dialog_handle and button_id formats/sources are never spelled out.

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 and resource: click one observed button in the managed Revit modal dialog. It is clearly distinguished from get_revit_dialogs (which produces the snapshot it consumes) and from get_revit_operation_result (which it defers to after a waiting_for_dialog result). An agent can tell which tool to reach for without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit prerequisites (requires a fresh snapshot from get_revit_dialogs), explicit exclusions (do not guess labels; do not automatically authorize deletion, discarded edits, overwrites, or auth/security permissions), and an explicit routing rule (after waiting_for_dialog, retrieve the original operation result rather than repeating the model command). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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