override_graphics

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

There are no annotations, and the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the active view but does not reveal whether the color override is permanent, reversible, or how it interacts with existing overrides. It also fails to mention any side effects or view requirements beyond 'active'.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by an Args block. No unnecessary words, and the parameter formatting is clean and easy to parse.

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?

The purpose and parameters are adequately described, but the description lacks usage context, behavioral nuances, and any guidance on alternatives. This is a simple tool, but without annotations or output schema, more detail on expected side effects would improve 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 0%, but the description compensates well by detailing the allowed color names and hex format, and clarifying that element_ids are integers. This adds meaningful semantic information beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Colour elements in the active Revit view so they stand out visually.' It uses a specific verb and resource (elements in active view), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like color_by_parameter or isolate_elements, which serve related purposes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection among siblings like color_by_parameter or isolate_elements.

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