create_surface_based_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the decimal-feet requirement, automatic closing of the boundary, planarity/non-self-intersection constraints, return value (id, name, category), version requirement for ceilings, and the 'floors only' restriction for structural. This is thorough and non-misleading.

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 well-organized and front-loaded: purpose statement, critical coordinate note, boundary rules, return value, limitations, version note, and a structured Args block. Every sentence adds meaningful information without 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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: parameter semantics, defaults, constraints, return information, and version-specific behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool without additional context.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args block explains all 5 parameters: element_kind values, boundary structure with an example, level_name default, type_name default, and structural scope. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 'Create a floor or ceiling from a closed boundary outline,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing create_line_based_element for coordinate format and clearly scoping the element type to floors/ceilings.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: it states unsupported cases (openings, sloped floors, arcs) and directs users to execute_revit_code for those scenarios. It also documents the required coordinate system and the host-level default, making when-to-use and when-not-to-use very clear.

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