revit-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states units are in millimeters and supports batch creation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether creation is reversible, error handling, or what happens on partial failure in batch operations. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: first stating purpose and examples, second detailing parameters and units. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids unnecessary repetition, though it could be slightly more polished.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, element IDs), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of creating multiple Revit elements, more guidance is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds marginal value by listing parameters (family type ID, start/end points, thickness, height, level information) and confirming units are in mm, but doesn't provide additional syntax, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 creates line-based elements in Revit with specific examples (walls, beams, pipes) and mentions batch creation. It distinguishes from siblings like create_point_based_element and create_surface_based_element by specifying 'line-based' elements, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 like create_point_based_element or create_surface_based_element. It mentions batch creation but doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic functionality.

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