set_parameter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic type conversion and return of old/new values, but lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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 concise with a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a feature summary and argument list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no verbosity. Slight improvement possible by integrating the Args section more naturally.

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?

The description mentions return values but lacks output format details. It does not address error handling, invalid parameters, or active document requirements. For a data-modifying tool in a complex environment, more completeness is warranted.

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 coverage, the description's 'Args' section adds essential meaning to each parameter, including an example for parameter_name and the auto-conversion for value. This is a significant improvement over the bare schema, though element_id could benefit from more context.

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 the verb 'Set' and the resource 'parameter value on a Revit element', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also mentions automatic type detection and conversion, which distinguishes it from generic 'modify_element' sibling.

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 implies use for setting a single parameter but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given siblings like 'modify_element' that might also modify parameters, some exclusion or alternative mention would improve this score.

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