open_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that opening may also audit or detach from central, which is meaningful beyond the annotations. It does not disclose what detaching does to the file's worksharing state, whether the opened document becomes the active one, or how failures surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation and its optional modifiers come first. It is not padded, though the brevity trades away useful detail.

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 not be described, and the tool itself is conceptually simple. But with zero schema description coverage on three parameters and a destructiveHint=true annotation, the description should at minimum explain the consequences of detach and the expected path form.

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 the parameter meaning and it largely does not. It names 'audit' and 'detach' but never explains their effect or tradeoffs, and 'file_path' — the only required parameter — is never characterized (expected .rvt local path, central model path, etc.).

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 ('Opens a specified Revit document') plus the two optional modes of that operation. It is clearly distinct from close_document/save_document by the verb, but it never names those siblings or states the boundary explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to open versus when to use launch_revit, get_revit_status, or close_document, and no prerequisites (e.g., Revit must be running, file must exist locally). The word 'optionally' hints that audit/detach are elective but gives no conditions for choosing them.

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