set_map_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Move the map view' correctly signals a non-destructive view-state change rather than a data mutation, but it says nothing about persistence, error behavior when no map is active, or whether an unknown map_name fails silently. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

One sentence, imperative verb first, zero filler. The full actionable scope is front-loaded before the colon.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. All seven parameters are optional and individually documented, and the description correctly notes the aspects can be combined ('and/or'), which is the one interaction detail the schema alone would not convey.

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%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (units, EPSG/WKID, scale denominator, extent keys, active-map default). The description only restates the parameter groups at a high level and adds no syntax or unit detail 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?

Specific verb ('Move the map view') plus the resource it acts on, and it enumerates the four settable aspects (extent, centre, scale, rotation). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with get_map_view, export_map_view or set_map_frame_extent, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 'and/or' phrasing implies you may combine any subset of the four view controls, which is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusion against siblings like zoom_to_layer, apply_bookmark or set_map_frame_extent. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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