Load Families

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real value on top: the whole batch is a single undo entry, and existing families are skipped rather than replaced unless overwrite is true. It does not characterize dry_run, timeouts, or what the operation returns.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core action leads and the conditional behavior follows. Appropriately front-loaded, though terse given the tool's six parameters.

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, but with six parameters at 17% coverage and multiple undocumented options (dry_run, overwrite_parameter_values, timeout), the description is too thin for a destructive batch mutation. It leaves meaningful invocation behavior unspecified.

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 coverage is only 17% – just 'document' is documented. The description touches 'paths' (implied by .rfa files) and 'overwrite', but dry_run, overwrite_parameter_values, and response_timeout_s are undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clear verb (load) and resource (.rfa family files) with the useful 'workstation' qualifier that distinguishes it from placing/editing families. It is distinguishable from siblings like revit_place_families and revit_edit_families, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

The description explains conditional conflict behavior ('skipped unless overwrite is true') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to alternatives such as revit_place_families or revit_edit_families. The agent must infer the correct scenario from context alone.

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