Create View

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description usefully adds behavior beyond that: unbounded 3D views render the whole model shaded at fine detail, and box values are in model millimetres. It still omits what the dry_run flag does and whether creation permanently alters the document, so it adds moderate rather than rich context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the 3D-view default, then the box unit convention. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

For a 12-parameter destructive creation tool with 8% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. Although an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, the absence of usage guidance, dry_run semantics, and per-parameter meaning leaves the agent under-informed for a non-idempotent, destructive operation.

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 bears most of the burden and fails to carry it. It clarifies only box units (mm) and the 3D default rendering; level, scale, template, element_ids, detail_level, display_style, view_family_type, dry_run, name and document are never explained beyond their schema names.

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 ('Create') plus resource ('view') and enumerates the supported kinds (plan, section, 3D, drafting), which matches the 'kind' enum. However, it does not distinguish itself from view-creating siblings such as revit_duplicate_view or revit_apply_view_template, so an agent must infer which creation path to take.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like revit_duplicate_view or revit_create_schedule, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., an open document). The only conditional hint is implicit: that a 3D view with no box is unbounded. No exclusions or routing to sibling tools are provided.

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