jump_to_view3d_object_by_name

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by revealing exactly what may change when allow_edits is true: the object may be un-hidden and its collections enabled. This is honest, concrete behavioral disclosure. It does not contradict 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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the optional side-effect is separated into the second. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and the optional mutation is explained. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's burden. It does not mention failure behavior when the object is hidden and allow_edits is false, but for a focused navigation tool this is a minor gap.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does this effectively for allow_edits ('the object may be un-hidden and its collections enabled') and clarifies that name refers to the object's name. It could add format or uniqueness details for name, but it sufficiently compensates for the missing schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Move the 3D viewport to focus on an object by *name*.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jump_to_view3d_object_data_by_name and jump_to_tab_by_name by emphasizing viewport-level navigation rather than data or tab focus.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need the 3D viewport to focus on a named object. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as jump_to_view3d_object_data_by_name, nor does it state when allow_edits should be enabled versus left false.

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