Create BIM Model Revision Plan

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

The description discloses non-idempotency (calling again creates another record) and error payload details (401, 403, 404), which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention all edge cases but provides meaningful insight for an agent, and does not contradict the annotations.

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 multi-sentence but each sentence adds value: core purpose, return behavior, error handling, required params, and endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the primary action and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers purpose, operation (POST), return value (new id), common errors, required parameters, and API context (Preconstruction > BIM). With no output schema, it adequately explains the response. It doesn't detail the nested object's internal structure, but the schema already permits arbitrary properties, so this is acceptable.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described (project_id as unique identifier, bim_model_revision_plan as an object). The description only reiterates required parameters without adding format details, nested object structure, or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a relationship between a BIM Model Revision and a BIM Plan' which is specific and action-oriented. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list, show, delete, batch create) by specifying it creates a single BIM model revision plan. The endpoint and HTTP 201 details further confirm the purpose.

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 implies usage by stating it creates a record and returns it with a new id, and notes that calling it again creates another record. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like batch create or list/show, nor provide when-not-to-use conditions. Usage context is clear but not fully differentiated.

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