nx_create_projected_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the parent-view fallback behavior, but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, failure modes, or what happens if no drafting view exists.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the core action, and uses the second sentence for a concrete parameter rule. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 creation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves important gaps: prerequisites such as an existing sheet/drafting view, the purpose of the name parameter, failure behavior, and side effects are unstated. The output schema helps with return values, but the input and behavioral context remain incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially explains x/y as sheet position and clarifies the parent_view_id fallback, but it says nothing about the name parameter, units, coordinate format, or parent-view ID format.

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 states a specific action and resource: projecting a view from an existing drafting view at a sheet position. It is clear enough to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with related drafting-view tools.

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 gives one useful usage rule: leave parent_view_id empty to use the first drafting view on the sheet. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing drafting views or creating drawing sheets, nor does it mention prerequisites.

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