Copy Elements

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds real value beyond them: dry_run performs a rollback, group members surface in skipped.inGroup, and the call is refused when every element is a group member. These are concrete post-conditions an agent cannot derive from annotations or schema.

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 dense sentences, no filler, with the core copy behavior front-loaded and the edge-case handling (dry_run, group refusal) trailing. Every sentence carries distinct actionable 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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the mutation's key side effects well. However, with three required parameters and low schema coverage, an agent still lacks clarity on element_ids selection, the document target, and dz handling, so it is only minimally complete for a destructive batch operation.

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 14%, so the description carries most of the load. It usefully clarifies the count range (1-100), the mm offset/multiple behavior, and dry_run rollback semantics, but element_ids, dz_mm, and the document selector remain unexplained in both places, leaving meaningful gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 ('Create 1 to 100 successive copies') with the offset semantics front-loaded, so an agent immediately knows this produces duplicated geometry along an axis. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from neighbors like revit_move or revit_mirror, which also reposition geometry, so selection still requires inference.

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?

The description explains how the tool behaves but never states when to prefer it over alternatives such as revit_move or revit_mirror, nor any prerequisites for choosing it. The only contextual cue is the group-member refusal, which is a constraint rather than when-to-use guidance.

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