Create Wall

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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive mutation, so the baseline is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: dry_run executes then rolls back and returns the identical verification block, and an unknown/ambiguous document reference is rejected before any change.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core geometry and unit contract before the dry_run and document qualifications. Minimal waste, though the sentences are dense enough that the unit clause packs three facts into one line.

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 needn't be described, and the description covers the geometry contract, type fallback, dry-run verification, and document disambiguation. Missing only the failure behavior for invalid level names, which is a small residual gap for a 7-parameter mutation.

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% (only `document` is documented in-schema), so the description must compensate and largely does: it clarifies the millimetre unit for start/end and height, that wall_type=null selects the first basic type, and dry_run's semantics. It does not spell out the level-name matching rule or endpoint ordering, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (create a straight wall) and pins down the scope: a named level, millimetre XY endpoints, height. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like revit_place_family or revit_move, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 explains dry_run and when a document reference is required, which is real routing help, but never states when to reach for this tool versus the other modeling siblings in the catalog. Usage is implied rather than contrasted.

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