Delete Elements

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

Annotations only declare the write/destructive/idempotency profile; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that dependent elements are cascaded into the deletion, that the returned count includes those dependents, that dry_run still executes and rolls back to yield the same verification block, and that an ambiguous document reference is rejected before any change. These are exactly the consequence details an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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, each carrying distinct information (cascade scope, dry-run semantics, document disambiguation), with the core destructive behavior front-loaded and no filler.

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 destructive multi-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers consequences, verification, and document targeting adequately. Minor omissions remain: no mention of failure modes for already-deleted or locked elements, and no explicit ordering for multiple IDs.

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 33%, so the description must compensate for element_ids and dry_run, and it does: it clarifies that IDs are unitless and that dry_run rolls back rather than only simulating. The document semantics largely duplicate the schema's own description, so it is good compensation rather than full coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Delete elements") and adds the important scope qualifier that Revit dependencies are removed with them. It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like revit_query_elements or link-oriented removals such as revit_remove_links. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so 5 is not warranted.

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?

"when removal is intended" is a thin usage cue, and the dry_run sentence implies a verify-then-apply workflow without stating it as guidance (e.g., "use dry_run first to preview"). The document parameter's when-to-supply condition is genuinely useful, but there is no explicit when-not or alternative routing. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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