Highlight 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 usefully adds that reset only restores overrides saved in this Revit session (session-scoped state that is lost otherwise). It does not disclose that overrides mutate view graphics irreversibly for elements not reset, nor mention the dry_run preview parameter despite it existing.

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?

Two tight clauses with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified for a 10-parameter mutation tool rather than genuinely concise.

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 destructive 10-parameter tool the description omits applicability conditions, the dry_run escape hatch, and most parameter meaning. It covers the core action and the reset semantics but is thin overall.

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 10% (only `document`), so the description must carry the burden and largely fails to. It hints at color, reset, views and element_ids, but leaves fill, transparency, halftone_others, line_weight, dry_run and the views enum values ("active"/"all") undocumented in both places.

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") plus the reset behavior, so the agent knows this applies graphic overrides rather than selection or visibility. It does not name or distinguish itself from near-neighbours like revit_isolate or revit_set_view_visibility.

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 guidance: nothing says when to prefer an override over isolate/select/set_view_visibility, nor that element_ids and a document must already be selected/known. The only conditional information (reset) is about a parameter, not about choosing the tool.

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