Activate View

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent already knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds no context on what state changes (UI focus, document activation, any prior view state lost) or why the tool is flagged destructive, which is the main behavioral gap.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the zoom options follow. It is terse to the point of underspecification, but nothing is wasted.

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, but for a 6-parameter mutating tool with near-zero schema coverage the description is far too thin: it omits four parameters, activation semantics, and the destructive behavior the annotations flag.

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 17% (only 'document' is documented), so the description must compensate. It loosely gestures at the zoom parameter ('fit', 'preserve zoom', 'frame element IDs') but leaves view_type, process_id, activate_document, and the element-ID array format entirely unexplained.

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 and resource ('Activate a non-template view') and adds a scoping qualifier that separates it from revit_activate_document and revit_list_views. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name the sibling it is being distinguished from.

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 lists zoom modes but never says when an agent should activate a view versus opening/activating a document, nor any precondition (e.g. view must not be a template is asserted but not framed as guidance). No when-not or alternative routing is given.

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