Update BIM Model Revision

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond this: the conditional rule for `published_model_upload_uuid`/`object_definition_upload_uuid`, the partial update behavior, and the HTTP error semantics (401/403/404). This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and failure modes.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core action, conditional attribute rule, partial update semantics, ID resolution guidance, return value, error codes, required parameters, and API context. It is front-loaded with the key verb+resource and maintains a logical flow without repetition or fluff.

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 output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites (existing parent record), partial update behavior, specific conditional constraints, success return value, common failure modes, and endpoint information. The agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret errors.

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 all 3 parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that `id` must reference an existing parent record and should be resolved via a list tool, and by describing two sub-attributes not present in the schema (published_model_upload_uuid, object_definition_upload_uuid) that influence behavior. This compensates for schema gaps.

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 'Update a BIM Model Revision,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this update operation from create/list/show/delete siblings. It further clarifies partial update semantics, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (updating existing revisions) and includes a specific directive: 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also states that omitted fields keep their current values. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclude scenarios (e.g., 'use create_bim_model_revision for new revisions'), leaving the guideline slightly implicit.

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