dat_tham_so

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true). It discloses that the default dry-run is rolled back, that a real edit triggers a Revit Keep/Cancel confirmation dialog, that values are interpreted in project display units (e.g. "2500" mm), and that real edits require explicit user consent. This is exactly the behavioral context a destructive tool needs.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then breaks the mode/unit guidance into discrete lines with no filler. Dense but every line earns its place; slightly repetitive between the opening scope line and the mode lines.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotation safety profile is enriched by the rollback, confirmation-dialog, unit, and consent details. Minor gaps remain: behavior above the 200-element cap, the meaning of revit, and idempotency expectations.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents chay_thu's two modes and the value/unit semantics of gia_tri, and implies ids (200-element cap), but leaves revit and tham_so unexplored. Partial compensation for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb (gán giá trị = assign a value), the resource (a parameter on elements), and an explicit scope limit (tối đa 200 phần tử). An agent can immediately tell this is a write-back operation on Revit element parameters, distinct from the read-only statistics 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?

Clearly explains the two operating modes and gives an explicit precondition: only use chay_thu=False when the user has explicitly agreed. This is strong mode-selection guidance, though it does not compare the tool against any sibling alternative.

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