Place Views on Sheet

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. The description adds only the coordinate unit note, which is semantic rather than behavioral; it says nothing about side effects on existing sheet content, permissions, or the meaning of the dry_run flag that exists in the schema.

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 that are front-loaded with the core action and then the coordinate convention. No wasted words, though it borders on under-specification for a destructive multi-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with low schema coverage, the description omits the purpose of dry_run and any caution about altering existing sheet layout, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 25% (only 'document' is described), so the description must compensate. It partially does so by specifying that coordinates use sheet millimetres, clarifying x_mm/y_mm, but it leaves 'sheet', 'views', and 'dry_run' unexplained, so the coverage gap is not fully closed.

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 (place) plus the resources (views and schedules) and the target (a sheet), so an agent immediately understands the operation. It does not, however, name or contrast with the nearest siblings like revit_create_sheet, revit_list_views, or revit_export_view, leaving differentiation to inference.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools. It does not tell the agent when placing on an existing sheet is appropriate versus creating a sheet first (revit_create_sheet), nor does it explain what happens if a view is invalid.

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