Duplicate View

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the safety profile, so the description needed to add context such as what a dependent view inherits, that duplication persists new elements to the model, or how the auto-generated name is chosen. It adds none of this, essentially restating the mode enum.

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. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral and parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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?

Output schema and annotations relieve the description of return-value and safety obligations, but for a destructive 5-parameter tool it omits the name defaulting behavior, the purpose of dry_run, and what "dependent" implies for view hierarchy. An agent can invoke it, but not confidently.

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 20% (just the document param), so the description must carry the semantic load for view, mode, name and dry_run. It only hints at mode semantics via "with detailing or as a dependent view" and says nothing about name defaulting to an auto-generated value or what dry_run does for a destructive operation.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Duplicate a view") and names the two non-default variants (with detailing, dependent), so an agent can tell it apart from revit_create_view. It does not, however, clarify how it relates to sibling view-creation tools beyond the word "duplicate".

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 guidance on when to duplicate vs. use revit_create_view, no prerequisites (view must be active/valid, document must be open), and no mention of when to prefer a dependent view over a full duplicate. The optional variants are named but their selection criteria are not explained.

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