Open Document

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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint, non-idempotency and non-read-only, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that central models open detached by default and that long actions can return status=running with a jobId while possibly having already modified the model. The 'resubmitting repeats the action' line largely restates idempotentHint=false, which keeps it from 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?

Four front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information: supported paths, detached default, cloud exclusion, async/idempotency caveat. Dense but no filler; the async caveat is appropriately placed last.

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 no explanation, and the async job behavior is well covered. However, for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the near-total absence of guidance on mode, worksets, audit, activate and process_id leaves invocation decisions underspecified.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it addresses only the 'detached' default for mode and the path constraint. Four parameters (audit, activate, worksets, process_id) and three of the four mode enum values receive no explanation anywhere.

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 ('Open a ... model') and defines the accepted scope precisely: local, UNC and RSN models, with cloud paths explicitly excluded. This scope boundary implicitly separates it from revit_new_document and revit_close_document without the agent needing to open any schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context (local/UNC/RSN models) and a when-not exclusion (cloud paths unsupported), plus names revit_jobs as the tool to poll a long-running result. It stops short of naming a preferred alternative for the cloud case, so it lands just under full explicit routing.

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