Mirror Elements

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: group members Revit refuses to change are surfaced in skipped.inGroup, dry_run predicts this, and the whole call is refused if every element is such a member. It does not explicitly spell out the geometric mutation semantics, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 dense sentences that are reasonably front-loaded, leading with the geometric operation and the copy behavior. Every clause carries information, though the second sentence stacks several conditions tightly and could be split for easier parsing.

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 described, and the description still names the skipped.inGroup reporting field, tying into output behavior. For a 6-parameter destructive transform it covers the risky paths (group-member refusal, dry_run) well; the only real omission is the element_ids selection semantics and any permission context.

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 schema description coverage at only 17%, the description must compensate, and it does: it gives meaning to axis (X or Y parallel line), point_mm (the point the mirror line passes through), copy (keeps originals), and dry_run (predicts skipped members). element_ids is left to its obvious name and document is already documented in the schema, so the marginal gaps are small.

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 ('Mirror Elements') plus the exact mechanism: a model X or Y parallel line through point_mm. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling transforms like revit_move, revit_rotate, and revit_copy without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 implies context by noting 'copy keeps originals,' which is the main decision knob versus a plain copy/move operation, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over revit_copy, revit_move, or revit_rotate, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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