Save Named View

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavior beyond that — duplicate names replace (`replaced: true`), `height`/`width` must be positive and finite, `center` must be well-formed, and headless with an empty drawing and no `center`/`height` is refused because there are no extents. That is substantive disclosure, though the consequence of replacement (overwriting an existing view definition) could be spelled out more.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints in a compact refusal list; nothing is padded. The trailing 'Pack: settings · lean: no' is internal metadata that sits oddly in a tool description but is short.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the remaining burden is behavioral, and the description covers defaults, replacement, and failure modes well. It stops short of stating whether the drawing must be open/active versus headless in general, beyond the empty-drawing edge case.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description contributes constraint semantics the schema lacks: non-positive/non-finite height and width are rejected, malformed center is rejected, and the headless empty-drawing case with no center/height fails. These are meaningful additions over the field descriptions.

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 precise verb and resource: store a VIEW table entry, explicitly tying it to AutoCAD's VIEW command. It's clearly a save operation, distinct from view_named_restore/list, but it never names those siblings to route the agent between them.

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 implied rather than stated: it explains replacement on duplicate name and refusal conditions, which frames when the call will succeed, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs the restore/list siblings or prerequisite guidance.

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