Move Elements

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations: it discloses that dry_run rolls back and returns a verification block, enumerates exactly which element classes are skipped (inGroup, pinned, hosted, constrained) and where they are reported, and states the refusal condition when every element is a group member. This is the kind of outcome-level detail an agent needs before committing a destructive transform.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the dry_run and skip-reporting details. No filler, though the skipped.* field enumeration is a long clause that 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, and the description still names the verification block and skip buckets. A destructive mutation tool with annotations and an output schema is covered adequately; only the element_ids semantics remain thin.

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 17% (document only), so the description must compensate. It does explain the axis semantics of dx_mm/dy_mm/dz_mm, the dz default behavior implied by omission, and dry_run's effect, but says nothing about element_ids or how document selection interacts with the move.

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 (Move) and resource (elements) plus the exact displacement axes (dx_mm, dy_mm, dz_mm on model axes). It is distinguishable from siblings like revit_rotate, revit_copy and revit_mirror by naming the transform explicitly, though it never names those siblings by name.

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?

Usage is implied by the parameter semantics and the dry_run/refusal notes, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of revit_rotate/copy/align when...' guidance. The conditions described are edge-case behaviors rather than selection criteria against alternatives.

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