view_set

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that this does not touch geometry or mesh and does not increment the authoritative session revision, plus the checkpoint precondition. It does not address error behavior when no checkpoint exists or any concurrency concerns, but the safety profile is well covered.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its non-effects; the enum mapping and fit semantics each earn their place with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers preconditions and side-effect scope. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if the viewer has no displayed checkpoint or how the change interacts with other view tools.

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 the semantics, and it does: every preset enum value is mapped to a viewing direction and fit is defined in terms of orthographic projection plus pan/zoom reset. Only session_id is left unexplained, though it is self-evident.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (select a camera preset in the Gmsh viewer) and immediately delimits scope (without changing geometry or mesh), which cleanly separates it from view_clip, view_open, and view_capture.

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?

It states the selecting conditions for fit=True vs fit=False and gives a precondition (a displayed checkpoint must exist), so the agent knows when each mode applies. It stops short of naming alternative sibling tools for related view operations.

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