send_code_to_revit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that code is inserted into a template with access to Document and parameters, but doesn't address critical behaviors like execution safety (e.g., whether code runs in a sandbox, potential for destructive changes), authentication requirements, error handling, or performance implications. The description provides basic context but leaves significant gaps for a tool that executes arbitrary code.

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 appropriately sized with two clear sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second provides important contextual constraints about the template structure. There's no redundant information, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with usage context.

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 tool that executes arbitrary C# code in Revit with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address safety considerations, expected return values, error conditions, or execution environment details that would be crucial for an AI agent to use this tool responsibly. The description covers basic mechanics but misses critical contextual information.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the template context and Execute method, but doesn't provide additional syntax examples, parameter format details, or constraints beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Send C# code to Revit for execution'), identifies the resource (Revit), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform element manipulation, filtering, or creation operations. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that is unique among the available tools.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active Revit session), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'operate_element' or 'ai_element_filter' that might handle different types of operations. Usage is implied only through the tool's purpose.

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