revit-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions code execution within a template and access to Document/parameters, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, execution environment constraints, error handling, or whether this operation is reversible/destructive. For a code execution tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second provides important implementation context about the template structure. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with critical behavioral information.

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 code execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after execution (success/failure responses, return values, error formats), doesn't mention security implications of executing arbitrary code, and provides minimal guidance about the execution environment. Given the complexity and potential risks of code execution, more comprehensive description 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 already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions that code will be inserted into a template with access to Document and parameters, which adds some context about how the 'code' parameter will be used, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Send C# code to Revit for execution'), identifies the resource (Revit), and distinguishes this from sibling tools that manipulate elements or retrieve data rather than executing custom code. The phrase 'for execution' provides clear functional differentiation.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies this is for executing custom C# code in Revit, it doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate use cases, or when other tools like 'operate_element' might be more suitable. The description lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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