set_viewport_display

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the mutation and adds one behavioral detail (deformation_scale None = auto), but it does not say whether this applies to the active viewport, what happens if variable/component are invalid, or whether a loaded ODB is required. For a display-changing tool this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 compact: one purpose sentence followed by a tight Arg list with no filler. It is front-loaded and scannable. The only minor omission is that timeout is left unexplained, but the overall size is appropriate.

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 the core set operation, the valid parameter values are present, and an output schema exists so return values do not need explanation. However, the description omits usage conditions, ordering relative to related viewport tools, and failure/fallout behavior. Because all parameters are optional and schema coverage is 0%, more context would make it fully complete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the Arg list compensates well for four parameters: it enumerates valid plot_type values and gives concrete examples for variable and component. It also clarifies that deformation_scale None means auto. The schema-only timeout parameter is not covered, but the main parameters gain real semantic value.

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 first sentence states a concrete action and object: 'Set the viewport display type and variable.' It also lists valid plot_type values and examples for variable and component, so an agent understands the tool's scope. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like set_viewport_view or set_viewport_annotations, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives such as set_viewport_view, set_viewport_annotations, or capture_viewport. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or ordering hints, so an agent must infer applicability from the tool name and sibling names.

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