viewer_highlight_clash

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

Annotation indicates destructiveHint=true, but the description describes a non-destructive highlight operation. This contradiction undermines transparency. No other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

One efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words, though the parenthetical could be clearer regarding the color mapping.

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 that annotations provide destructiveHint=true (contradicting) and no output description, the tool lacks essential context. It doesn't mention that the viewer must be open, what happens if pnt_ids are invalid, or the return value (output schema exists but unused). Incomplete for effective use.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds mapping: pnt_id_a for element A (red), pnt_id_b for element B (green), which provides some meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on valid values, format, or optionality.

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 verb 'highlights', the resource 'clash pair', and specifies the visual effect (element A red, element B green). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like viewer_isolate or viewer_select.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites mentioned. The description does not address when highlighting is appropriate compared to viewer_isolate or other tools.

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