Select Elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. Beyond the annotations it adds real behavior: an empty list clears the selection, and an unknown or ambiguous document reference is rejected before any change occurs. It stops short of saying whether the selection persists or how it interacts with later tools.

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 what the tool does, then the disambiguation rule. The only mild redundancy is re-stating the `document` guidance already carried in the schema; nothing else is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the two-parameter surface is simple. The description covers clearing semantics, unitless IDs, and document disambiguation, leaving only the persistence/interaction of the selection with other tools unstated.

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 coverage is only 50%: `element_ids` has no schema description at all, and `document` is fully documented in the schema (the prose here largely restates it). The description compensates for the gap by explaining that IDs are unitless and that an empty list is a clear operation, which is genuine added meaning for the undocumented array parameter.

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 first clause gives a specific verb and resource — select element IDs for inspection in Revit — and adds two scoping facts (empty list clears selection, IDs are unitless). It does not distinguish itself from related view-state siblings like revit_show or revit_isolate, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

It states one concrete usage rule (pass `document` when several models are open; omit when only one is) and the empty-list-clear convention. It never says when to prefer this over sibling tools that also affect what is displayed, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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