set_viewport_view_mode

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the return payload shape (applied/requested/view_mode_index/view_mode), which is useful since no output schema exists, but it never explains what 'destructive' actually means here or whether the change is editor-visual only versus persisted to the asset.

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 very short lines, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return shape. Nothing is padded, though the return line is the only content beyond a single purpose clause.

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 viewport tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the return payload, which is the key missing structured information. It stops short of explaining side effects or interaction with sibling viewport/view-type tools, but the essentials are present.

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 schema enumerates all ten legal values (Lit, Unlit, Wireframe, ... Reflections), so the parameter is fully documented structurally. The description adds nothing beyond restating 'view mode'; per the high-coverage 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 ('Set') and resource ('rendering view mode') and scopes it to the 'active editor viewport'. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from near-neighbor siblings such as set_view_type, set_game_view, or set_viewport_realtime, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like set_view_type or set_viewport_camera. The only implicit context is the 'active editor viewport' scoping phrase, which is not enough to route the agent among several similar viewport tools.

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