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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the crucial non-obvious trait: this changes only the default view, while whoever opens the editor can still switch for themselves and keep that choice — which explains why the write is idempotent but affects other users. It does not state permission requirements or the response shape.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the default-vs-personal semantics plus the caution are placed after it. However, the middle run-on sentence restates the enum values that the input schema already documents verbatim, adding length without new information.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety hints, the description supplies the missing behavioral nuance (scope of the default change) and the usage gate. Nothing essential for a correct call is absent, though permission/persistence details would round it out.

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 100%, and the view parameter is documented in the schema with the same 'Full'/'Simple' explanation the description repeats. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or edge-case handling beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies; privateKey is left unexplained in both places.

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 and resource ('Change how a lambda's editor opens') and the setting affected, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like change_code or update_feature. It never generalizes to 'lambda settings' even though the title does, which slightly narrows the perceived scope but keeps it precise.

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 a clear gating rule ('Only do this when the user asks for it') and the schema reinforces the trigger ('use it when the user asks for a simple editor, or says they are not a developer'). It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. read_lambda to inspect current state), but the when-to-use condition is explicit rather than implied.

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