gsa_set_view_contour

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation of view state but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., whether the view must already exist), side effects, whether existing contour settings are overwritten, or permission requirements.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. For a mutation tool with three required parameters and no structured documentation, it is too small to be useful.

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, but the description still provides almost no context for a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage. It is not complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without guessing.

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 0% and all three parameters are required. The description only hints at 'dataref' and 'view,' but adds no meaning for saved_view_gwa or view_id, nor does it explain what dataref represents or its expected format.

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 'Apply' and mentions 'contour settings' and 'output dataref to view,' giving a rough sense of the action. However, 'contour settings' and 'dataref' are ambiguous jargon, and the description does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like gsa_set_view_diagram or gsa_set_view_labels.

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 alternatives mentioned. The agent is left to infer that this applies contour display settings to an existing view from the name alone.

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