set_far_clip_plane

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), lowering the bar. The description adds useful context by scoping the change to the 'active editor viewport' and by enumerating the return shape in lieu of an output schema, but it does not explain what the destructive flag implies or how the override can be reverted.

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 lines: purpose is front-loaded, and the return shape follows. Every part earns its place, though the returns line reads more like a schema dump than prose.

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 single-parameter viewport toggle with full annotation coverage, the description is largely complete, and it usefully compensates for the absent output schema by documenting the response fields. It stops short of clarifying the destructive/idempotent implications.

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 100% and the single parameter's description already covers units (cm) and the 0-to-clear sentinel. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource combination ('Override the far clip plane distance on the active editor viewport'), which is unambiguous. The 'far' qualifier distinguishes it by name from a near-clip sibling, but the description never explicitly names an alternative tool or scoping condition.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. The only behavioral hint about clearing the override lives in the schema parameter text ('Pass 0 to clear the override'), not in the description itself, and no alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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