Switch view

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does not say whether the switch applies to the active viewport or all views, whether it persists in the document, or whether it resets zoom/selection. Only the basic action is conveyed.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the two relevant targets. It is efficient, though it is a bare fragment with no additional context.

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 single-parameter tool with full enum documentation and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves open scope questions (active viewport vs. all views) that matter for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, and the enum for view is fully documented in the schema, so the description needn't repeat it. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable at baseline for full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (switch) and resource (CAD camera or view plane), which is clear enough to tell it apart from most siblings such as dataset_query or run_action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from switch_layout, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a view change.

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 guidance on when to use this versus switch_layout or other view-related siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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