Create MEP Run

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description is consistent with them. It adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: how missing Z is resolved (level elevation plus the kind's default offset) and that unplaceable elbows are surfaced as unjoined pairs rather than failing silently. It does not, however, mention dry_run or reversal/undo implications.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the trailing 'unjoined pairs' note is more of a return-value detail than invocation guidance.

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?

For a 12-parameter destructive creation tool the description is thin: it omits dry_run, sizing-parameter relationships, and any preconditions. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile, which keeps this at a minimum-viable rather than failing level.

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 8%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It hints at points_mm (millimetre points, missing Z), level, and the default offset, but says nothing about width_mm/height_mm/diameter_mm selection, type_name, system_type, connect_to, or the important dry_run flag. Most of the 12 parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('Create connected duct, pipe, cable tray or conduit segments') and specifies the input frame ('from model millimetre points'). An agent can immediately distinguish this from sibling creation tools such as revit_create_wall or revit_place_families.

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 implied by the name and the segment kinds, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. document/level state, active document requirement) and no exclusions. The document parameter's own schema description carries the disambiguation guidance instead.

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