transform_elements

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 does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether copy creates new elements or move modifies existing), authentication needs, or error states. The description only states the operation type without behavioral caveats.

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 well-structured with a title line, summary, and Args list. It is not overly verbose, though the Args section largely duplicates schema info while adding necessary context. The purpose is front-loaded, but the overall length is reasonable for the complexity.

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 the complexity (6 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers parameter usage well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., return value, side effects, error handling). The absence of output schema description leaves a gap in completeness.

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 0%, so the description compensates by providing units (mm, degrees), conditional requirements (e.g., vector is required for move/copy), and structure for objects (e.g., mirror_plane has origin and normal). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though some parameters like 'mirror_plane' could be slightly clearer.

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 tool's action: 'Move, copy, rotate, or mirror elements in the Revit model.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (elements). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_elements or modify_element.

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 usage for geometric transformations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like copy/move via modify_element. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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