set_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the write operation, transaction handling, type parameter fallback, side effects on all instances, response contents (scope, instances_affected, warning), and unit conventions for numeric values. This is excellent disclosure beyond simple operation description.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by important behavioral context and an Args block. Each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers most essential behavior: transaction, fallback, side effects, units, and partial response format. It does not explicitly state the normal success response or error cases, which are minor gaps.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), but the description's Args section clarifies element_id as an integer ID, parameter_name as exact name from get_element_properties, and value with unit caveats and advice for writing text parameters. This fully compensates for the schema gaps.

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: 'Set a parameter value on a Revit element' and describes the transaction lifecycle. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a single parameter write, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with set_parameters.

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 explains the behavior of falling back to type parameters and warns about the consequences, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_parameters. The guidance about warning the user is useful, but it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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