create_surface_based_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions batch creation and units (mm), which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits such as whether this is a mutation (likely yes, given 'create'), permission requirements, error handling, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 main purpose and key features in two sentences, with no wasted words. It efficiently covers batch creation, parameters, and units. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from parameter 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?

Given the complexity (creation tool with batch support, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like whether creation is atomic. For a tool that likely modifies a Revit model, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'detailed parameters including family type ID, boundary lines, thickness, and level information', but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('create') and resource ('surface-based elements in Revit such as floors, ceilings, or roofs'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_line_based_element' and 'create_point_based_element' by specifying surface-based elements, which helps the agent select the correct tool.

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 surface-based elements with batch support, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_line_based_element' or 'create_point_based_element'. It provides some context (e.g., batch creation) but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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