Create BIM Model Revision

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

The annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement about creating new records on each call is consistent. It adds valuable context about the default 'unpublished' status when no uploads/artifacts are supplied and enumerates common HTTP error causes (401/403/404), which annotations don't convey.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence conveying a distinct fact: action, default state, return behavior, error semantics, and API endpoint. No filler 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 two-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description explains the success return (new id, HTTP 201), the non-idempotency, common error statuses, and the publishing default. It doesn't describe the full response body, but the essentials are covered.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a conditional about upload UUIDs/model artifact references affecting publish status, but doesn't clarify the structure or expected format of bim_model_revision beyond the vague schema text, so it doesn't significantly elevate parameter understanding.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource construction ('Create a Revision for a BIM Model') and emphasizes the non-idempotent create semantics ('calling it again creates another record'), which distinguishes it from update/delete/list siblings.

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?

While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the create action and the warning about duplicate records provide clear context for when to invoke it. The conditional publish status and error-code breakdown give operational guidance, though no explicit 'when-not-to-use' is stated.

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