plasticity_set_view

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the concrete behavior of fitting all geometry, but does not explain why a mere viewport change is flagged destructive or what state it alters, leaving a small unexplained gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary action precedes the optional modifier.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not enumerate the orientation options nor clarify what fitting geometry does to the current view, which an agent might need.

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%, so the description must carry meaning. It correctly conveys that 'view' selects a named orientation and that 'fit' is optional, but it does not clarify the allowed orientation values or the effect of fit, adding only partial meaning over the raw schema.

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 specific verb+resource ('Set a named viewport orientation') plus the additional fit behavior, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is clear but offers no differentiation against any sibling, since no other view-orientation tool exists in the list.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only usage hint is the word 'optionally' for the fit argument, which is a parameter detail rather than selection guidance.

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