edit_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that delete=True deletes the view and that projected/section views stay aligned and move only along that line, but it omits permission requirements, reversibility/persistence, side effects on dimensions or annotations, and return behavior. Clear gaps remain.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with move/change/delete and every sentence carries information, including the valuable alignment caveat. The long parenthetical first sentence is dense but not padded.

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 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is largely complete: it covers the main operations, most parameter values, and the key alignment constraint. It still leaves some gaps around required name semantics and mutation side effects.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 11 parameters, the description compensates well by defining at as [x, y], beside/side/gap_mm, align values, scale values, display modes, new_name, and delete=True. It does not explain the required name parameter or elaborate on tangent_edges, so it is not fully complete.

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 opening sentence names the resource (a view) and three concrete operations (move, change, delete) with parameter syntax, so an agent can distinguish it from add_view and list_views. It is a specific verb-plus-resource description, not a tautology.

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 description lists capabilities (move/change/delete) that imply when the tool is useful, but it does not explicitly say when to choose it over add_view or list_views, nor state prerequisites such as the view already existing. The guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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