set_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses transaction behavior (one transaction, one round trip, single undo entry), ordering ('applied in order'), and failure handling ('failed items are reported per item, the rest are still written'). It doesn't mention permissions or side effects, but for a parameter setting tool this is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core benefit, the second gives a clear usage preference, and the Args block is concise. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 description fully explains how to construct the assignments and the execution semantics, and it distinguishes from the sibling set_parameter. It doesn't explicitly describe the return value format beyond 'reported per item', which is a minor gap given there's no output schema, but it's otherwise complete for a tool with one parameter.

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 only defines 'assignments' as an array of generic objects with no item structure, so the description's Args block is essential. It defines the exact structure (element_id int, parameter_name str, value str), ordering, and failure semantics, fully compensating for the 0% 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 tool's function: 'Set many parameter values in ONE Revit transaction', specifying the verb ('Set'), the resource ('parameter values'), and the scope (multiple in one transaction). It also distinguishes this from the sibling tool set_parameter by explicitly saying 'Always prefer this over calling set_parameter in a loop.'

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Always prefer this over calling set_parameter in a loop' and explains why (one round trip, single undo entry). This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over its alternative, though it doesn't mention when to prefer set_parameter for a single parameter, which is implied but not stated.

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