Update Parameters

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: groups Revit refuses to change are reported in skipped.inGroup rather than aborting the call, and dry_run predicts this. It omits any mention of the element-count cap or authorization scope.

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 and selection rule, followed by the failure-mode/dry-run caveat. No filler.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description still surfaces the key output field (skipped.inGroup) and the dry_run contract. The main gap is parameter-level detail for a tool with 8 parameters and almost no schema descriptions.

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%, so the schema does not carry the burden. The description explains filters (delegated to revit_query_elements) and the purpose of dry_run, but says nothing about parameter vs parameter_id, value typing, max_elements, or include_type_parameters; the document parameter is documented only inside the schema.

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 (Update) and resource (a parameter on elements), and pins down the selection mechanism by equating filters with revit_query_elements. It is distinguishable from the single-target revit_set_parameter, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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: 'elements matching the same filters as revit_query_elements' tells the agent this is a bulk/filtered update and dry_run exists for previewing. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-revit_set_parameter or when-not-to-use guidance.

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