Export Navisworks NWC

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so safety is partly covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the artifact stays on the workstation (not returned/uploaded), it is refused in read-only mode, it needs the Navisworks exporter installed, and settings_xml supplies defaults while explicit arguments win. That last precedence rule is exactly the kind of context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and host, then preconditions, then output/precedence behavior. Every clause carries information; the only minor cost is the dense semicolon chain, which trades readability for brevity.

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 need no explanation, and the preconditions plus precedence rule cover the most important risks. However, for a 23-parameter mutation tool with near-zero schema coverage, the description leaves substantial gaps (overwrite behavior, timeout/dry_run semantics, interaction between element_ids and scope) that an agent would need to guess at.

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 4% across 23 parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it only clarifies settings_xml (exporter XML values) and the precedence relationship between settings_xml and explicit arguments. Nothing is said about scope, view, element_ids, overwrite, dry_run, response_timeout_s, or the many boolean export toggles, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 and resource ('Export NWC') plus the host context ('on the Revit workstation'), which is enough to separate it from read-oriented siblings like revit_nwc_settings_check or revit_export_view. It stops short of naming which sibling covers related pre-flight/settings work, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives real preconditions — 'Requires the Navisworks exporter; refused in read-only mode' — which tell the agent when the call will fail. But there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, e.g. why call this instead of revit_nwc_settings_check first, or when revit_export_view is the better route.

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