link_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that linked files maintain a live connection and imported files are embedded, which is key behavioral info. However, it omits details about error handling, permissions, or what happens if the file path is invalid.

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 a single paragraph with a clear list of arguments, making it scannable. It could be slightly more concise, but the information density is good and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values or success/error indications. It covers file linking basics but lacks context on prerequisites, side effects, or error scenarios, which is a gap for a file I/O tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively documents all three parameters: file_path (path to supported types), mode (link/import with defaults), and position (optional offset with units). 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 it links or imports external files into Revit, lists supported formats (DWG, DXF, DGN, RVT), and distinguishes between link and import modes. This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like export or creation.

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 explains the two modes (link vs import) and their implications (live connection vs embedded). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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