send_code_to_revit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that code is inserted into a template with Document and parameter access, but omits critical details such as potential destructive side effects, error handling, permission requirements, or execution synchronization. This under-disclosure is risky for a code execution tool.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: the action, the template context, and the coding requirement. No waste or redundancy.

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 potential complexity and risk of executing arbitrary code, the description is incomplete. It lacks any mention of expected return values, error handling, limitations, or safety warnings. The absence of an output schema and annotations heightens the need for explicit behavioral context, which is missing.

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 100% (both 'code' and 'parameters' have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by mentioning Document and parameter access inside the Execute method, but does not significantly improve on schema semantics, making 3 appropriate.

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 'Send C# code to Revit for execution' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform element operations or queries by focusing on arbitrary code execution.

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 executing C# code in Revit but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling tools or any exclusions. It lacks direct comparison or 'use this when' phrasing, though the context of arbitrary code execution is clear.

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