Close Views

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this destroys state. The description adds the scope ('UI views in the active document') but says nothing about whether unsaved changes are lost or how batch/process_id semantics affect behavior, so it adds only modest context beyond annotations.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource and free of filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the parameter/behavioral gaps.

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 explained, but for a destructive mutation with three fully undocumented parameters the description is too thin. It should at least clarify 'keep_active' and the process/view-selection semantics.

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% and the description mentions none of the three parameters. The meaning of 'views' (names vs ids), 'process_id', and especially 'keep_active' (defaults to true) is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess.

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 (close UI views) scoped to the active document, which implicitly distinguishes it from sibling revit_close_document. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast with view-management siblings like revit_list_views.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite conditions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for cleanup after view operations rather than being told.

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