Restore Named View

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and does so richly: it documents the live path (VIEWCTR/VIEWSIZE semantics), the headless fallback with its aspect-ratio and centre-shift caveat, the emitted `applied` states, the reported-no-op rule, and the refusal behavior. This is exceptional behavioral disclosure well beyond the annotations.

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 effect is front-loaded, but the body is dense, telegraphic, and includes cryptic markup like 'Pack: settings · lean: no.' that costs tokens without clearly helping an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still explains the live-vs-headless result states and the refusal case, covering a non-trivial mutation well. It is only incomplete in that no guidance is offered on when to prefer this over the other view/UCS restore tools.

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 single `name` parameter is already documented as coming from view_named_list, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the invalid-name path (an unknown name is refused and the saved views are listed), which gives the parameter concrete validation semantics.

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 effect: it zooms the active viewport to a saved window, naming the AutoCAD `-VIEW _R` analogue, which immediately distinguishes it from view_named_save and view_named_list. It is specific about verb+resource, though it never phrases the restoral quite as plainly as 'restores a previously saved named view'.

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?

Usage is only implied via the sibling context ('A name from view_named_list' in the schema) and the refusal clause, which tells the agent where valid names come from. No alternatives such as view_zoom_window, view_zoom_extents, or ucs_restore are contrasted, and no conditions for choosing this over them are given.

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