Highlight Elements

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail: reset restores overrides saved in this Revit session, scoping the reversibility. It does not warn about the destructive override of existing view graphics or mention the dry_run safety path.

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 compact single sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the reset semantics trailing after a semicolon. No waste, though it is arguably too terse for a 10-parameter destructive 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 no explanation, but for a 10-parameter, destructive, multi-view mutation the description is far too thin. It omits the dry_run preview, the meaning of 'views' scoping (active vs all vs explicit), and the visibility effects that a caller must understand before invoking it.

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?

With 10 parameters and only 10% schema description coverage (just 'document'), the description must carry the load but only gestures at color and reset. fill, line_weight, transparency, halftone_others, views, and especially dry_run are never explained, leaving most of the surface 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 and resource ('Colour elements in selected model views') and clarifies what the reset path does. It is clear what the tool achieves, but it never differentiates itself from display-related siblings such as revit_isolate, revit_show, revit_set_view_visibility, or revit_select.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite many sibling tools that also alter how elements are displayed. The reader is left to infer the context entirely from the one-line purpose.

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