Set View Visibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context by noting dry_run provides a preview, but it does not explain what gets overwritten, how template_mode behaves, or permission/ambiguity handling.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the format detail follows. Appropriately sized for the description's scope, though it could be argued the format sentence is the only real content beyond the verb.

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 explained, but for a destructive 10-parameter tool with 10% schema coverage the description is thin. It leaves most parameters and their interactions (template_mode, worksets, filters) undefined, which is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 10% across 10 parameters, so the description carries a heavy compensation burden. It does clarify that category parameters accept Revit UI names, BuiltInCategory names (OST_StructuralColumns), English names or IDs, which is valuable, but the remaining parameters (worksets, template_mode, category_classes, filters, hide_categories_by_type) are entirely undocumented.

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 ('Change') and resource (category, workset and filter visibility in one view), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like revit_view_info or revit_view_summary, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against.

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?

Mentioning 'preview with dry_run' gives a concrete usage hint for safely checking changes before applying them. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. open document requirements), and no alternatives named.

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