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 provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions batch creation and units (mm), but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this is a write operation (implied but not stated), what happens on failure, whether elements are immediately visible, if it requires specific Revit document states, or any permissions/rate limits. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and scope, second adds unit information. Appropriately front-loaded with the core functionality. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points for key features but remains efficient.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns element IDs? success status?), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of creating Revit elements with multiple parameters, more guidance on usage and outcomes 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 mentioning 'detailed parameters including family type ID, position, dimensions, and level information' and 'units are in millimeters (mm)', which reinforces schema details but doesn't provide new semantic context beyond what's already in parameter descriptions.

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 point-based elements in Revit with specific examples (doors, windows, furniture) and mentions batch creation capability. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_line_based_element' and 'create_surface_based_element' by specifying 'point-based', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_line_based_element' or 'create_surface_based_element'. The description mentions 'point-based elements' but doesn't explain what qualifies as point-based versus line-based or surface-based, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing valid family type IDs from 'get_available_family_types'.

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