auto_calibrate_grids

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description reads as a passive analysis ('matches... returns') and never warns that it may alter the model's grid/calibration state. It also omits permission/setup requirements and whether an existing calibration is overwritten. With a destructive annotation, at minimum the description should tell the agent what gets changed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing needs trimming. However, brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive five-parameter tool with zero schema documentation the description leaves far too much unstated: no preconditions, no parameter meaning, and no disclosure of model mutation.

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?

Five parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them — not page_number (required), method, pdf_path, level_name, or overall_page. It also never clarifies the distinction between page_number and overall_page, which is the most likely misuse vector.

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 and resource: matching PDF drawing coordinates to Revit grids, plus the outputs (calibration points, scale, error). It is distinguishable from siblings like parse_pdf_structural_plan, which parse rather than calibrate against the model.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus the PDF parsing tools, no prerequisites such as needing a document open or a level selected, and no note on what to do when calibration fails. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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