Set View Visibility

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context that dry_run produces a preview and that categories can be supplied in several notations. However, it is silent on the impactful template_mode enum (detach/edit_template/duplicate_view) and on what exactly is destroyed or requires a worksharing-enabled model.

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 dense sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the dry_run and naming details. Every clause carries information an agent can use.

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, 10-parameter tool with 10% schema coverage, this description is materially incomplete: template_mode, filters, worksets, category_classes and hide_categories_by_type are all unexplained. An output schema exists so return values need not be covered, but the input surface is largely undocumented.

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 10% against 10 parameters, so the description carries the burden and falls well short. It explains accepted category notations (a real value-add for hide_categories/show_categories) but says nothing about worksets structure, category_classes, hide_categories_by_type, the filters object shape, or template_mode semantics.

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: 'Change category, workset and filter visibility in one view'. This is concrete and scoped ('in one view'), and clearly distinct from sibling mutation tools like revit_isolate or revit_override_graphics. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 only usage hint is 'dry_run previews'. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus revit_isolate, revit_apply_view_template, revit_override_graphics, or revit_view_info, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. An agent cannot infer the boundary conditions from this text.

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