Edit Families

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds context beyond them: dry-run transactions roll back all changes, and the tool is refused in read-only mode. These are useful safety/permission disclosures the schema does not contain, though write-scope consequences beyond rollback are not detailed.

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 short front-loaded statements with zero filler; the mode split and dry-run/read-only constraints come first. Every sentence earns its place.

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 high-complexity mutation tool with 7 parameters, 14% schema coverage and four undiscriminated operation variants, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the operation vocabulary and error-handling parameters remain undocumented anywhere.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains families (exact names or ["*"]) and dry_run behavior, but says nothing about document, operations (the core op-discriminated purge/set_shared/remove_parameters/add_shared_parameters), stop_on_error, response_timeout_s, or overwrite_parameter_values.

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 (Edit) and resource (families) and distinguishes two modes: editing an open family in place versus named project families. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby inspection siblings like revit_family_audit, but the mutation intent 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?

'In project mode, pass exact family names or ["*"]' and 'Refused in read-only mode' give real operational conditions for use. However, it never names alternatives (e.g. revit_set_parameter for instance values or revit_family_audit to inspect first), so the when-to-use-vs-siblings guidance is only implied.

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