revit-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or effects on the model. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the key action ('Delete') and resource ('elements'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool's destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address safety, permissions, or result expectations, leaving the agent under-informed about critical behavioral aspects.

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%, with the parameter 'elementIds' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the IDs are for deletion, matching the baseline score when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Delete') and target ('elements from the Revit model'), specifying the mechanism ('by their element IDs'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'operate_element' or 'get_selected_elements' by focusing on deletion, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other destructive tools if they exist.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid element IDs), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk deletion), or suggest related tools like 'get_selected_elements' for obtaining IDs, leaving usage context implied at best.

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