gsa_set_view_diagram

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a configuration mutation but does not state what is changed, whether existing settings are overwritten, whether it requires the view to exist, what saved_view_gwa represents, or any side effects. Only the bare intent is conveyed.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action. Its brevity is only a problem because it under-specifies, not because it is wordy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and an output schema present, the description should convey what the tool changes, prerequisites, and enough parameter meaning to call it correctly. It falls short on all counts; the output schema only covers return values, not inputs.

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 required parameters (dataref, view_id, saved_view_gwa) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions "dataref" and "view" but doesn't explain the meaning, type expectations, or the role of saved_view_gwa. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 description states a verb ("Apply") and a resource ("diagram settings and output dataref to view"), so the general intent is clear. However, "diagram settings" is vague and the phrase is elliptical, making it hard to distinguish from siblings like gsa_set_view_base_settings, gsa_set_view_contour, or gsa_set_view_labels. It names no specific sibling to help an agent choose.

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, no alternatives, no prerequisites. The description offers nothing to help an agent decide between this and the other gsa_set_view_* tools.

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