set_game_view

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, non-open-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the visual effect and, with no output schema present, the return shape { applied, requested, in_game_view }, which is genuine added value, though the three booleans are not explained and the destructive/revert consequences are not spelled out.

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 sentences, effect front-loaded before the return contract, with no filler. Every clause carries 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?

For a one-parameter toggle whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description is essentially complete: it states the effect and the return shape in lieu of an output schema. Only the meaning of the returned booleans and the revert semantics of destructiveHint remain unelaborated.

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 single boolean's description ('True to enable game view, false to revert to editor view') fully documents its semantics. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb (toggle) and resource (Game View mode on the active editor viewport), plus the concrete effect ('hides editor-only chrome'). It does not name or contrast with any of the many viewport-related siblings (set_viewport_view_mode, set_view_type), so it is clear but not explicitly 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?

There is no statement of when to use this vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about the editor context required. The parenthetical effect hints at intent but is not usage guidance, and the large set of viewport/view-mode siblings is left entirely for the agent to sort out.

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