open_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the detach option's effect ('Preserves worksets but severs the link to the central model') and the audit option's purpose. It does not mention potential errors or side effects like closing the current document, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple 'open' action.

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 concise and well-structured: a lead sentence stating the main purpose, one supporting line about workshared files, and a neatly formatted Args block with per-parameter details. Every word contributes value, no fluff or 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 an open-document tool with no output schema, the description covers essential context: file types, detach/audit behaviors, and prerequisite ('running Revit'). It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens if the file is already open, or error handling) but is sufficiently complete for most usage scenarios.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates with detailed explanations for each parameter: file_path (absolute path to specific extensions), detach (boolean, detaches from central), and audit (boolean, checks corruption). This goes well beyond what the schema provides, giving the agent complete understanding of each argument.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Open a Revit document file in the running Revit instance.' It specifies supported file extensions (.rvt, .rfa, .rte) and distinct options (detach, audit), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like close_document or save_document.

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 when to use the tool (when needing to open a Revit file) but does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or mention exclusions. It notes 'in the running Revit instance,' which hints that Revit must be running, but it does not direct to launch_revit if it isn't. No explicit when-not-to-use instructions.

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