create_point_based_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates elements (implying mutation) and mentions batch creation and units, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers key features in two sentences. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from technical details.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers what the tool does and basic parameters, but lacks details on permissions, error cases, return values, or integration with sibling tools like get_available_family_types.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'data' and its nested properties. The description adds minimal value by mentioning batch creation and units (mm), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates point-based elements in Revit with specific examples (doors, windows, furniture), distinguishes it from siblings like create_line_based_element and create_surface_based_element, and specifies batch creation capability.

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 usage for creating point-based elements but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like create_line_based_element or create_surface_based_element. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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