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. It states the tool creates tags but doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation (modifying the model), what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, or what happens on failure. The description adds basic context about tag placement but lacks critical behavioral details 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?

The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose and scope, while the second adds important placement details. There's zero wasted language 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, created tag IDs, etc.), error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. While concise, it lacks the completeness needed for an agent to use this tool confidently in a complex environment like Revit.

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 documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 ('Create tags'), target resource ('all walls in the current active view'), and placement details ('at the middle point of each wall'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_current_view_elements' or 'create_point_based_element' by focusing specifically on wall tagging operations.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an active view with walls), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'operate_element' or 'create_point_based_element' that might handle similar operations. The context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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