New Document

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 safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds only that creation is template-based and workstation-local, but says nothing about what is destroyed, whether activation implies UI focus, or how save_as interacts with the new document. Minimal added value beyond structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding — the key verb and resource lead. Its brevity is efficient rather than wasteful, though it borders on under-specification for a six-parameter tool.

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 explained, but for a destructive, non-idempotent creation tool with 6 parameters at 0% coverage the description is too thin. An agent lacks the information to set name, save_as, activate, or process_id correctly.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only 'project or family' (the kind enum) and 'template' are hinted at; name, save_as, activate, and process_id remain entirely undocumented, and even the hinted parameters get no format or behavior detail.

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 and resource ('Create a project or family') and adds the platform scope ('on the Revit workstation'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from open_document or load_family. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so it does not reach the top tier.

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 use this over open_document or load_family, nor on prerequisites such as whether a template must exist or whether creation is the intended alternative to opening an existing file. The description provides no when-to-use context at all.

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