Move Elements

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: dry_run executes then rolls back while returning the same verification block, and an unknown/ambiguous document reference is rejected before any change. It does not explain recoverability (e.g. whether revit_undo_last reverses a move) or limits on batch size.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and units before the dry_run and document caveats. The opening clause 'when adjusting their position' is mildly redundant with 'move', but nothing else is wasted.

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 re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with unit/axis semantics, dry_run behavior and document disambiguation, the definition is nearly complete; the gap is element_ids provenance and any statement about reversibility after a real move.

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%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it defines dx_mm/dy_mm/dz_mm as millimetre offsets on model axes, explains dry_run's execute-and-rollback semantics, and clarifies document matching. Only element_ids (source/validity of the IDs) is left undocumented.

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+resource ('Move elements') and adds the scope of the operation plus the unit/axis convention for the offsets. No sibling is named or contrasted, but the operation itself is unique enough among the listed siblings (align, place, create, delete) that an agent can route to it.

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 phrase 'when adjusting their position' gives an implied trigger, and the document parameter guidance explains when to pass it. There is no explicit statement of when not to use this tool versus alternatives such as revit_align_link_datums or revit_place_family, so usage remains inferred.

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