Export Model Files

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

Annotations already flag non-read-only, non-idempotent, and destructive behavior, but the description adds critical operational context: refused in read-only mode, dry_run planned names, needsConfirmation with confirm_token for overwrite, long-running jobs returning status=running and jobId, and the warning not to resubmit. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and then organized by behavior, confirmation, and async handling. Dense but mostly earns its place, though a few clauses could be tightened.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed, and the description covers safety and async execution well. However, for a 12-parameter export tool it omits how selection parameters such as views, sheets, sheet_set, and all_sheets interact, leaving a notable gap.

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% for 12 parameters. The description adds meaning for format, dry_run, overwrite, and confirm_token, but leaves views, folder, sheets, options, sheet_set, all_sheets, and response_timeout_s unexplained, so it does not compensate for the low 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?

States a specific verb, 'Export', and the resources/formats, 'PDF, DWG, IFC or schedule CSV files on the Revit workstation'. This lets an agent identify it as the general Revit export tool and implicitly distinguishes it from sibling revit_export_nwc.

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?

Explains read-only refusal, dry_run behavior, overwrite confirmation flow, and async job polling. It does not explicitly compare against sibling export tools or state when to choose revit_export_view or revit_export_nwc, but the format list gives clear context.

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