New Document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether save_as writes to disk, whether the active document changes, how activation behaves, or what happens if the template is missing.

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 filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the coverage gaps elsewhere rather than purely a virtue.

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?

For a document-creating mutation with 6 undocumented parameters and no schema coverage, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but parameter meaning and usage context are missing.

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 carries the burden and mostly fails. It only alludes to 'kind' (project or family) and 'template', leaving name, save_as, activate, and process_id entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

Specific verb (Create) plus resource (project or family) and the source (a template), so the agent knows this produces a new document rather than opening one. It does not name siblings like revit_open_document or revit_load_family, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 'from a template' hints at new-document creation versus opening, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (template must exist, workstation must be reachable), and no named alternative among the many document siblings.

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