Close Views

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'close' – it does not say whether unsaved view state is lost, whether the active view is protected, or how the process_id/keep_active options affect the outcome.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than effective economy given the tool's three parameters and destructive nature.

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, and annotations cover safety. Yet with three undocumented parameters, a default of keep_active=true, and no explanation of what gets closed, the description is too thin for the tool's behavior.

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 all three parameters (views, process_id, keep_active) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain that views accepts a list of view names, what null means, or what keep_active defaults to, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (close) and resource (open UI views) scoped to the active document, which is enough to separate it from revit_close_document. However, it does not clarify whether it can close all views, a subset, or only the active view, leaving the resource boundary slightly fuzzy.

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 mention of alternatives such as revit_activate_view or revit_close_document, and no preconditions. The description only says what happens, not when an agent should reach for it.

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