Place Views on Sheet

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating profile is covered. The description adds only the coordinate unit; it says nothing about what happens if a view is already placed, whether placement can be undone, or that dry_run exists — meaningful behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the unit clarification following. Nothing is redundant and nothing pads.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with four parameters, this is thin: no prerequisites, no failure modes, no mention of dry_run for safe previewing. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the operational context an agent needs before calling it is largely 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 only 25% (just `document`), so the description must compensate. 'Coordinates are sheet mm' usefully disambiguates x_mm/y_mm units, but `sheet`, `views`, and especially `dry_run` — a preview flag critical for a destructive tool — are left unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

Names a specific verb (place) and resource (views and schedules on a sheet), plus the coordinate unit used by the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as revit_create_sheet or revit_place_family, so an agent must still infer which placement tool applies.

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 use this versus revit_create_sheet (to make the sheet first) or revit_place_family. No prerequisites or preconditions (an open document, an existing sheet, unplaced views) are stated anywhere.

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