focus_viewport

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the description only needs to add context. It adds the return shape ({ focused_actor, focused_count }) but never explains the surprising 'destructive' labeling or what viewport state actually changes, which is a noticeable gap for a tool flagged destructive.

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, front-loaded lines with zero waste: purpose first, return shape second. Every line earns its place, and the return shape is genuinely useful given there is no output schema.

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?

Low-complexity tool: one optional parameter, no nested objects, and the description covers purpose, default behavior, and return values. It is nearly complete for such a simple tool, though it omits any note on side effects or failure modes (e.g., empty selection).

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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it ('Optional actor to focus on, defaults to current selection'). The description merely restates that behavior ('on an actor or the current selection') without adding format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Frame the editor viewport on an actor or the current selection.' An agent immediately knows this is a camera/viewport-framing operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like set_viewport_camera, set_viewport_fov, or get_viewport_state, so it stops short of 5.

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 implies two modes (explicit actor vs. omitted-for-selection) but gives no when-to-use guidance and never names or contrasts an alternative such as set_viewport_camera. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice versus a sibling.

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