Duplicate View

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context: it never explains that this writes new views into the model, what happens to the source view, whether an existing view with the given name is overwritten, or what dry_run previews. With a partially covered annotation set, the description leaves real gaps.

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 filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with only one documented parameter and no permission or naming guidance, the description is too thin. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the mode/naming/dry-run behavior an agent must decide on is absent.

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 20% (only 'document' is documented), so the description carries the burden for 'mode', 'name', and 'dry_run' but does not. Its mention of 'detailing' and 'dependent' loosely maps to two enum values but omits 'duplicate' semantics and never explains naming or dry-run behavior.

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 ('Duplicate a view') and hints at variant behavior via 'including detailing or creating a dependent view'. It does not distinguish itself from neighboring tools such as revit_create_view or revit_copy, so it stops 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?

There is no statement of when to duplicate versus create a new view, when to choose a dependent view versus a plain duplicate, or which view types are eligible. The word 'optionally' gestures at a choice without giving the conditions that select each branch.

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