Copy Elements

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, non-idempotent), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: skipped group members are reported via skipped.inGroup and skipped, dry_run predicts that outcome, and the whole call is refused if every element is such a member. It stops short of explaining why those elements are destructive or how copies interact with existing elements.

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 bounded count, then the failure/reporting behavior. Dense internal jargon (skipped.inGroup) but nothing is padding; every clause conveys a distinct fact.

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-value explanation is not required, yet the description still covers the key failure path (group members skipped, call refused when all are skipped) for what is a destructive mutation tool. It would be complete at a 5 if it addressed the document/selection prerequisites and the element_ids scope.

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% (just the document parameter), so the description has to compensate. It does clarify count (1 to 100), the dx/dy/dz offset semantics in mm, and dry_run's predictive behavior, but element_ids is never mentioned and the direction/axis meaning of dx_mm, dy_mm, dz_mm (default 0) is only partially conveyed.

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 ("Create 1 to 100 successive copies") plus the geometric basis (multiples of the model-axis offset in mm), so an agent can tell it apart from geometry siblings like revit_move, revit_mirror, and revit_rotate. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, keeping it below 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?

Usage is only implied: mentioning that "dry_run predicts this" hints at a preview-then-commit workflow, and the refusal condition tells the agent when a call will fail. There is no explicit statement of when to choose copy over move/mirror/rotate, or of prerequisites (open document, editable elements).

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