set_active_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning any side effects, prerequisites beyond view_id, or impact on the Revit document or UI state (e.g., whether the previous view is closed, if selection changes, or if any model modifications occur). The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the basic action.

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 exceptionally concise, using a single sentence to state the purpose and a brief Args section for the parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition; every element earns its place. The structure is clean and front-loaded, making it easy to parse.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequately complete. It specifies the action and the parameter's origin. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what happens after switching (e.g., return value or impact on the UI), but the absence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation make this a minor gap.

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?

While the schema only defines view_id as an integer with no description, the tool description adds crucial meaning: 'Id of the view to open, as returned by get_views.' This tells the agent exactly where to obtain a valid view_id, significantly compensating for the 0% schema coverage. The description adds value beyond the schema's bare type definition.

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's function: 'Switch the Revit window to another view.' This uses a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('view'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_views' (lists views) and 'reset_view' (resets view) by specifying the action of changing the active view.

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 implies usage by noting that view_id is 'as returned by get_views,' which indicates a prerequisite to call get_views first. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or provide any exclusions or contextual scenarios. This is clear but lacks the explicit guidance seen in higher-scoring examples.

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