add_viewport

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return value ('Returns the scale MEASURED back off the viewport') but does not describe side effects on the sheet, whether the operation is reversible, or any permission/error conditions. For a mutation operation, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 description is two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the format is clear and direct.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters) and no annotations, the description covers the main geometric inputs but omits the sheet parameter semantics, optional parameters (locked, plot_border), and does not specify units for model coordinates. An output schema exists but was not provided in the context, so some return details are disclosed. It is adequate but leaves gaps for a fully autonomous agent.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the key geometry parameters: rectangle corners (x1,y1,x2,y2), scale (1:scale), and center point (center_x,center_y). It does not describe sheet, locked, or plot_border, but the core parameters are well-defined.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Put a window onto the model on a sheet') and identifies the resource (sheet and model). It details the rectangle, scale, and center point, which distinguishes it from general view tools like view_3d or flatshot_view, and aligns with sibling fit_viewport which likely adjusts existing viewports.

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 implies usage: it is for placing a viewport on a sheet. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like fit_viewport or view_plan, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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