view_set_visual_style

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: it discloses the side effect of modifying viewport rendering mode and explains the security boundary that only allowlisted styles are accepted. It does not cover reversibility or persistence, but it provides solid context for a simple rendering-setting mutation.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and structured with explicitly labeled side-effects and disambiguation lines. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 single-parameter schema, full parameter description coverage, an output schema, and sparse annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It could be more complete by explicitly naming the sibling view tools to avoid confusion, but it covers the essential behavior and side effect.

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 100%, and the schema already enumerates all allowed style values. The description reinforces that the style must be allowlisted and gives an example, but it does not add syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: apply an allowlisted model-space visual style. It also scopes the behavior to bounded internal command mapping and explicitly notes that arbitrary command text is not accepted, which distinguishes it from generic command or view-manipulation siblings.

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 disambiguation line 'Changes shading and display mode' implies when this tool is relevant, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it versus view_set_direction, view_set_preset, view_zoom_extents, or other view-related siblings. Usage is inferable rather than clearly guided.

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