Isolate Elements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description usefully adds that the isolation is 'temporary' (reversible, does not mutate the model) and that a bad document reference is rejected before any change — genuine context beyond the annotations, though it does not say whether existing isolation is replaced or extended.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the disambiguation rule. Little waste, though the stray line break and the reset/empty-list wording add slight parsing friction.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations cover the mutation/reversibility profile. The description completes the picture for a view-state tool: what it affects, how to undo, and how to target a document. Only the add-vs-replace semantics of a second isolate call is missing.

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 coverage is only 33% (only `document` is documented), so the description must carry the rest. It does clarify that element_ids are unitless and that an empty list triggers reset, but the explicit `reset` boolean is never explained, and 'reset with an empty list' vs. the `reset` flag is potentially confusing. It compensates partially, not fully.

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 ('isolate IDs') plus scope ('active view') and a reversible mode ('reset with an empty list'), which separates it from neighbors like revit_select or revit_set_view_visibility. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear context ('for visual review'), the exact reset procedure ('reset with an empty list'), and the condition for the document argument ('when several are open'). It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the when-to-use signal is solid.

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