Create Schedule

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent operation, and the description is consistent with that. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'dry_run rolls back', 'itemized=false collapses identical rows', 'unknown names are listed in skipped', and the implicit unit system (mm, m2, m3).

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?

It is a dense but waste-free paragraph, front-loading the purpose before parameter behavior details. Semicolon-packed clauses make it slightly run-on, but every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with an output schema (so return format needn't be re-explained), the description covers the key behavioral facets — ordering, filters, sorting/grouping, units, itemized collapsing, dry_run rollback, and skipped names. Minor gaps around 'name' and 'category' semantics keep it short of complete.

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 13% (just 'document'), so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: it explains fields (ordered, Revit UI names like Mark/Level/Count), filters (field/operator/value row selection), sort (ordering plus header/footer grouping), itemized=false collapsing, and dry_run rollback. Only 'name' and 'category' are left implicit, so this meaningfully compensates for the sparse schema.

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 specific verb and resource — 'Create a schedule for one category' — and clarifies the field ordering and naming convention. This clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like revit_schedule_data and from other creation tools such as revit_create_view.

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 phrasing (create a schedule from a category and fields), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over revit_schedule_data or other creation tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Adequate context, but the agent must infer the trigger conditions.

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