Change Element Type

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and non-idempotent, and the description usefully adds that group members Revit refuses to change land in skipped.inGroup/skipped, that dry_run predicts this, and that the whole call is refused if every element falls in that category. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though permission requirements and per-element vs atomic semantics are still unstated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, with no filler. The second sentence is dense and semicolon-chained, which slightly reduces readability.

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 shape need not be described, and the description still surfaces the key result detail (skipped.inGroup/skipped) plus the all-elements-fail refusal. What is missing is whether partial failures continue silently and what 'compatible' means in practice.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage across 5 parameters, the description partially compensates by explaining that 'family' disambiguates duplicate type names and that dry_run predicts skips. It says nothing about element_ids or type_name resolution beyond the obvious, leaving gaps the schema also omits.

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+resource ('Change each element to one compatible type') with the compatibility constraint, so an agent can distinguish it from parameter-mutation siblings like revit_update_parameters. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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: nothing tells the agent when to pick revit_change_type over revit_update_parameters, revit_set_parameter, or revit_edit_families. The guidance present is about runtime failure behavior, not tool selection.

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