Create View

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful defaults (unbounded 3D views render the whole model shaded/fine) and the unit convention for box coordinates. However, it never mentions the existing dry_run flag, which is exactly the kind of safety-relevant behavior an agent should be told about for a destructive, non-idempotent tool.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then 3D defaults, then unit convention. No filler, no repetition of the schema or title.

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 12-parameter mutating tool with 8% schema coverage the description is far too thin. It never maps parameters to kinds (e.g., which fields are valid for a section vs a drafting view) or explains the role of dry_run, element_ids, or template.

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 8% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies box units (millimetres) and implies 3D display/detail defaults, but leaves name, level, scale, template, element_ids, view_family_type, dry_run, and the kind-specific applicability of each completely undocumented.

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 ('Create a plan, section, 3D or drafting view') and enumerates the supported view kinds, matching the 'kind' enum. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like revit_duplicate_view, revit_create_sheet, or revit_apply_view_template, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to create a view versus duplicating an existing one (revit_duplicate_view) or applying a template (revit_apply_view_template). The note about unbounded 3D views and millimetre units is context, not usage routing, so the agent gets no when/when-not direction.

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