place_family

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states a create action but omits side effects (e.g., whether coordinates are relative, if active view matters, or if duplicate instances are allowed). This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior.

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 12‑word sentence, which is concise but too sparse for 8 parameters. While front‑loading is good, it omits necessary details, making it marginally adequate.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain required vs optional behavior, coordinate semantics, or the 'properties' object. The agent would need to guess many details.

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 the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameter (e.g., family_name meaning, coordinate system, or properties object). The parameter names are self‑descriptive but the description adds no extra meaning, leaving gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('place') and resource ('family instance') and mentions the action occurs at a 'specified location in the Revit model'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_families' (which lists) and system family creation tools like 'create_duct' or 'create_pipe'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites (e.g., family must be loaded) or excluding situations (e.g., if family not found). No explicit context or when-not advice is given.

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