Place Family

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds useful context on unit conventions and type resolution, but says nothing about what the placement modifies, failure/rollback behavior, or how it interacts with revit_undo_last.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then format details in priority order. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 required 'level' parameter is understandable from 'named level'. But for an 8-parameter destructive tool with 13% schema coverage, the silence on dry_run and on the single-vs-batch sibling choice leaves real gaps.

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 only 13% (only 'document' is documented), so the description carries most of the burden. It does clarify the 'Family: Type' string format for family and the null type_name fallback, which are genuinely non-obvious. It omits dry_run entirely, which matters for a destructive tool, and the mm/degree notes largely restate the _mm/_deg parameter names.

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 gives a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Place a loaded unhosted family on a named level.' It also implicitly distinguishes hosted vs unhosted placement. However, it never differentiates itself from the obvious sibling revit_place_families (batch variant), leaving the agent to infer the singular/plural split.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'loaded' hints that revit_load_family must run first, but the description never says so explicitly, nor does it point to revit_place_families for multiple placements. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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