open_document

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

Despite no annotations, the description explains detach behavior ('preserves worksets but severs the link') and audit functionality. However, it does not cover error handling (e.g., file not found), state changes (e.g., closing current document), or return value.

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 (10 lines), front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured with a brief summary followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers main purpose, file types, and optional behaviors but lacks details on return output (if any), error scenarios, and implications for the current document state. Given no output schema or annotations, more completeness would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning beyond schema titles: file_path specifies allowed extensions, detach explains its effect on central linkage, audit clarifies corruption checking. This compensates for the schema's lack of description.

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 verb 'Open' and specific resource 'Revit document file', supported file extensions, and options for workshared files, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like close_document and 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sync_with_central for workshared files). Prerequisites like requiring a running Revit instance are implied but not explicit.

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