Set Parameter

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true and destructive=true, so safety is partly covered; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that ambiguous matches are refused, group members fail with a clear message, and dry_run rolls back and returns a verification block. It stops short of 5 because it never states that an existing parameter value is overwritten or whether the change is undoable.

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, then packs resolution, typing/units, failure modes and dry_run into three tight sentences. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly overstuffed with semicolons rather than truly wasteful.

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 not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description fills in the remaining behavioral gaps (ambiguity refusal, group-member failure, dry-run rollback, unit conventions). Only cross-tool routing and overwrite/undo semantics are missing, which is a minor gap for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema description coverage at only 17%, the description must carry the load, and it does for the two hardest parameters: it explains the three resolution modes for parameter_id (BuiltInParameter name, shared GUID, ParameterElement ID) versus localized/alias name resolution for parameter, plus value typing and unit conventions (mm, m2). element_id and document receive no added explanation, leaving a small gap.

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+resource ('Set one instance or type parameter') and scopes it to a single parameter, which implicitly contrasts with the plural sibling revit_update_parameters. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from revit_update_parameters or revit_parameter_fill_check, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description gives useful selection logic for the 'parameter' vs 'parameter_id' arguments, but never states when to prefer this tool over sibling setters like revit_update_parameters (bulk) or revit_parameter_fill_check. Usage is implied by scope rather than stated, matching a 3.

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