Rotate Elements

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructive=true, idempotent=false), and the description goes well beyond them: it names exactly which element categories are left unchanged (group members, pinned, hosted, constrained), reports where they surface (skipped.inGroup/pinned/hosted/constrained), states the full-refusal edge case, and discloses that dry_run performs a rollback.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and pivot definition, then a dry_run note, then skip semantics. Every clause carries information, though the final sentence chains four skip categories plus a refusal rule into one dense run-on.

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 destructive mutation with annotations and an output schema (which the skipped.* references align with), the description covers pivots, preview/rollback, skip behavior and refusal conditions. It omits any note about document targeting or angle units, but overall an agent has what it needs to invoke correctly.

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 20% (document is the sole documented parameter), so the description must compensate. It does clarify the two highest-value parameters: center_mm's axis/pivot meaning including the default of using the combined bounding box center, and dry_run's rollback semantics. angle_deg and element_ids units/constraints remain unspecified, so it stops short of full compensation.

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 (rotate) plus the resource (elements) and even the precise rotation axis and pivot semantics. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like revit_move and revit_mirror 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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the description explains dry_run rollback and skip/refusal conditions, but never says when to prefer revit_rotate over revit_move, revit_mirror or revit_copy, nor what prerequisites exist (e.g. an open/active document). Guidance is adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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