create_line_based_element

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behavior: all lengths are in decimal feet and unaffected by project display units, with conversion guidance (divide by 304.8 for mm). It also explains default behavior for omitted parameters, the return value (id, name, category), and that errors list available names rather than making the agent guess blindly.

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 long but well-structured and every sentence adds value. It front-loads the core purpose, then critical unit warning, return value, usage references, exclusions, and an organized Args list. No redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: defaults, unit system, error behavior, exclusions, and references to sibling tools for valid values. It states the return shape (id, name, category) and leaves little ambiguity for invocation.

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 Args section adds rich meaning beyond the raw schema: explains element_kind options, unit expectations for coordinates, per-parameter defaults (e.g., lowest level, first found type), and which parameters apply only to walls vs pipes. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create a wall, structural beam, or pipe running between two points.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like create_surface_based_element and place_family, and further clarifies scope by excluding ducts, cable trays, and curved walls.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool and alternatives: 'Use list_levels to see valid level_name values, and list_families for beam types.' It also says 'Does NOT create ducts, cable trays, curved walls... Use execute_revit_code for those,' providing clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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