Link CAD Drawing

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds nothing about document mutation, whether the operation is reversible, undo behavior, or the risk of duplicate links on repeated invocation. Its only behavioral content is a return-value note ('CAD layers and extents in mm') that the output schema already covers, so it under-delivers for a destructive write. No contradiction with the 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the parameter count and destructive nature.

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 not be spelled out, yet for a destructive 10-parameter tool with near-zero schema description coverage the description omits safety implications, parameter meaning, and required preconditions. It is not complete enough for an agent to call this correctly and safely.

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?

With 10 parameters and only 10% schema description coverage, the description must carry the semantic load, but it explains none of them beyond loosely implying path, view, layers, and units. The link/import toggle, level, origin, dry_run, document, and timeout parameters receive no clarification in either place.

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 names a specific verb pair ('Link or import') plus the resource ('a DWG') and the target ('into a plan view on the Revit workstation'), so an agent immediately knows what operation is performed. It stops short of differentiating itself from adjacent siblings such as revit_remove_links or revit_walls_from_cad, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to link versus import (the 'link' parameter is left unexplained), no prerequisites, and no mention of the required document disambiguation or when layer filtering should be applied. The agent is left to infer everything about tool selection and preconditions.

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