Activate View

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

Annotations carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), which is surprising for what reads like a UI focus action, but the description adds no context about why it is destructive, what state changes, or what permissions are needed. For a mutation tool it should disclose more than the zoom options.

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 core purpose and then the zoom behavior. Every clause earns its place with no filler, though it is on the thin side.

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?

With 6 parameters, 17% schema coverage, and a mutation that is flagged destructive, the description is too thin. It cannot explain the activation side effects or the undocumented parameters, and while an output schema exists (so return values need not be covered), the input behavior is left largely unexplained.

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 only 17%, and only "document" is described in the schema. The description does add real meaning for the "zoom" parameter (fit vs. preserve vs. frame element IDs), which the schema's bare enum/array does not convey, but view_type, process_id, and activate_document remain undocumented in both places.

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 clear verb+resource ("Activate a non-template view") and names a meaningful scope constraint that separates it from sibling view tools like close_views or create_view. It does not explicitly contrast with the nearest alternative (revit_activate_document), but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is a hint of a precondition ("non-template view") but no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative. An agent gets no help deciding between activating a view versus activating a document or opening a document.

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