set_clipping

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, but the description adds the crucial behavioral traits they cannot express: changes are preview-only, not persisted to source, lost on reload, tracked in pending_changes, and reversible via revert_changes. This is exactly the kind of non-structured context an agent needs.

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 sentences with the critical persistence warning front-loaded via the [LIVE PREVIEW] tag. No filler; each clause carries distinct 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 an 8-param mutation with no output schema and 88% schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavioral context (ephemeral preview, undo path). Return-value explanation is unnecessary without an output schema, so the only minor gap is that it doesn't hint at what pending_changes records.

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 88%, so the schema already documents the 8 parameters thoroughly. The description only maps 'renderer (global) or a material' to the target enum, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 second sentence states a specific verb+resource — 'Change clipping planes on the renderer (global) or a material' — and identifies both target modes. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the read-only sibling clipping_details.

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 [LIVE PREVIEW] framing and the note that changes are browser-only, lost on reload, recorded in pending_changes, and undoable with revert_changes give clear workflow context for when this tool is appropriate. It stops short of explicitly naming clipping_details as the read counterpart, so it's strong context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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