parse_pdf_structural_plan

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

The description frames this as a read/extract operation, yet annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the text never explains what is written or altered in the model. The only added context is the Revit coordinate system and mm units; there is no disclosure of side effects, required grid alignment inputs, or failure modes.

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 clause with no filler; the units and coordinate frame come first. It is efficient but so terse that key information is simply absent rather than condensed.

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 12-parameter extraction tool with a destructive annotation and no schema coverage, one sentence is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the calibration workflow (grid point pairs, drawing area) and the destructive side effects must be.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies units and coordinate frame for the *_mm parameters; pdf_path, page_number, level_name, the pdf/revit grid point pairs, drawing area points, include_slabs, require_beam_tag, and default_slab_thickness_mm are all left unexplained.

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 ('Extracts columns, beams, slabs and openings from a vector PDF plan') and adds the coordinate system and units. It is distinguishable from parse_pdf_foundation_plan by the element types extracted, though the difference is not made explicit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the PDF must be a vector plan, or that grid points must be supplied for calibration), and no routing to the sibling parse_pdf_foundation_plan for foundation sheets.

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