Run Action Batch

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

The annotations only give the coarse safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent, not read-only); the description adds substantive behavior: atomicity with a single undo step, rollback on first failure, the 50-action ceiling, and the precise dry_run semantics (executes, rolls back, returns the same verification block without changing the model). That is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core transactional guarantee before the dry_run and document details. No filler, no repetition of annotation content, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description still usefully references the verification block. Combined with the annotations it covers safety, atomicity, rollback, limits, and multi-document targeting. The remaining gap is the relationship to the sibling async batch tools, which the agent must resolve elsewhere.

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 coverage is only 33%, but the description compensates well for the undocumented dry_run parameter by explaining that it executes and rolls back while returning the same verification block. The document parameter is already fully documented in the schema and the description only echoes its rejection behavior; steps is largely covered by the schema's maxItems/enum, though the description restating 'up to 50' adds little.

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 and resource with scope: 'Execute up to 50 actions with one undo step.' An agent immediately knows this runs a transactional batch of model mutations. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling batch tools (revit_batch_start, revit_batch_status, revit_batch_cancel, revit_batch_fetch) or explain why one would batch rather than call the individual action 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?

Some usage context is implied through the dry_run and document explanations, which tell the agent when to preview and when to disambiguate a target model. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this batch tool versus the single-action siblings or versus revit_batch_start/status/cancel, so the agent must infer the routing.

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