Align Link Datums

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — that geometric alignment does not create a monitor relationship or trigger Coordination Review warnings — but it does not disclose the destructive scope (what happens to pinned or existing datums) or how rollback is actually performed.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one behavioral caveat. Nothing is padded, though the extreme brevity against a 17-parameter mutation tool makes it under-specified rather than exemplary.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, 17-parameter tool this is far too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the description gives no guidance on the many naming/creation/tolerance parameters an agent must set to call it correctly.

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 only 6% across 17 parameters, so the description carries the burden and fails: 'optional creation' and 'rollback preview' loosely hint at create_missing and dry_run, but kinds, prefix/suffix, name_map, tolerance_mm, include_pinned, grid_type/level_type and reuse_matching are entirely unexplained anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb ('Align') and resources ('host grids and levels') against a named target ('a loaded link'), plus the optional creation and preview behavior. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling revit_compare_link_datums (compare vs. align), though the description never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites (a link must be loaded, presumably compared first), and no exclusions for when to prefer revit_compare_link_datums or revit_shared_coordinates. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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