Compare Link Datums

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is free. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a geometric match does not create a monitor relationship or trigger Coordination Review warnings, and a non-empty 'skipped' means the answer is incomplete (with a 100-entry cap implication).

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 most important facts (compare action, no model change, monitor-relationship caveat) are front-loaded, and the paragraphs are dense with no filler. It is terse to the point of losing some needed detail, but nothing is wasted.

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 explained, and the description does cover the key caveats (no mutation, monitor semantics, skipped/incompleteness). For a 12-parameter tool it still leaves most parameter behavior undocumented, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 12 parameters and only 33% schema coverage, the description should compensate heavily but does not. It says nothing about tolerance_mm, kinds, prefix/suffix, name_map, level_offset_mm or reuse_matching, leaving the majority of inputs ambiguous in both description and schema. It only reinforces the already-documented document-selection rule.

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 gives a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('host grids and levels') with scope ('one loaded Revit link'), which is clear enough to act on. It does not name the obvious sibling 'revit_align_link_datums', so the agent has to infer the read-only comparison vs. align distinction from the 'No model change is made' line rather than a direct routing cue.

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 a real conditional ('If more than one Revit instance is running, document is required; otherwise any instance may respond'), which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, and no contrast with the read/write sibling 'revit_align_link_datums' that an agent would weigh against it.

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