create_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains parameter requirements for different view types but does not describe side effects (e.g., document modification, active view changes, write permissions, or error states). The focus is on parameter structure rather than the operation's impact, leaving the agent underinformed about the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by parameter details in bullet-like format. It front-loads the purpose and uses concise language. The section_box breakdown uses indentation for clarity. Slightly lengthy due to the nested parameter details, but each sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers creation abilities and parameter rules but lacks completeness. It does not describe return values (e.g., view ID), success/failure behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., open Revit document). The sibling tools provide some context, but the description should stand alone.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It adds significant meaning: enumerates view_type values, clarifies the level_name condition, and provides a detailed nested structure for section_box (origin, direction, up, width, height, depth). This compensates well for the bare schema. However, the description mentions a 'ctx' parameter not present in the schema, which could confuse agents.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new view in the Revit model and lists supported view types (floor plans, ceiling plans, sections, elevations, 3D). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_room or create_sheet by focusing on views, but does not explicitly contrast with other view-related tools (e.g., set_active_view). The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides usage conditions: floor plans and ceiling plans require a level name, sections require a section box definition with specific fields. This guides the agent on when certain parameters are needed. However, it does not state when not to use the tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., if a view already exists). The context is clear but lacks non-usage guidance.

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