operate_element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists actions but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify which actions are destructive (e.g., 'Delete permanently removes elements'), mention permission requirements, describe error handling, or explain view/state dependencies. The action descriptions in the schema help but aren't part of the tool description itself.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It uses 'etc.' appropriately to indicate non-exhaustive examples. However, it could be slightly more structured by grouping related actions or mentioning the tool's multi-action nature more explicitly.

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 tool's complexity (multiple actions with different behaviors) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's scope but misses critical context: no warning about destructive actions, no guidance on action selection, and no mention of Revit view state implications. The schema helps but doesn't replace descriptive completeness.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions action examples but doesn't elaborate on their semantics or usage. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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's purpose: 'Operate on Revit elements by performing actions such as select, selectionBox, setColor, setTransparency, delete, hide, etc.' It specifies the verb ('operate on') and resource ('Revit elements') with examples of specific actions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_element' or 'color_elements' that handle similar operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists actions but doesn't explain when to choose this multi-action tool over specialized siblings like 'delete_element' or 'color_elements'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

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