set_view_type

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true), so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the return payload shape, which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about scope (which viewport), permissions, or what state is overwritten.

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 compact lines, the action front-loaded and the return fields kept to one line. Nothing is padded, though the value list is redundant with the schema and could have been replaced with behaviorally useful content.

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, idempotent setter with no output schema, the description supplies the accepted values and the response shape, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is which viewport context is affected when multiple viewports exist.

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 parameter already enumerates 'One of: Perspective, Top, Bottom, Left, Right, Front, Back.' The description merely restates the same list, so it adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; 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 ('Set the active editor viewport type') and enumerates the accepted values inline, so the effect is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as set_viewport_view_mode or get_view_type, but the action itself is clear.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer on its own that get_view_type is the read counterpart and that set_viewport_view_mode controls lit/unlit rendering rather than camera orientation.

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