set_viewport_display

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that applied settings are returned, which is useful. However it says nothing about what happens to parameters left null (all six are optional with default null), whether changes are session-scoped or persisted, whether this is a mutation requiring an active viewport, or whether omitted fields reset to defaults.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the action front-loaded and the return behavior appended. It wastes no words, but its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from trimming redundancy.

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 a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is thin. The return behavior is covered, but parameter meaning, default/null behavior, and viewport-state prerequisites are all missing.

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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The phrase 'how the viewport draws' loosely gestures at the visual settings (point size, color scheme, display mode, reference plane, background) but explains none of them, and it gives no hint at all about pane_name or the null-means-unchanged 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 states a verb and resource ('Set how the viewport draws'), which separates it from siblings like set_viewport_camera or set_viewport_renderer. But 'how the viewport draws' is vague about scope: it never names points, colors, display modes, reference planes, or backgrounds, so the agent must open the schema to learn what is actually settable.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative sibling such as set_viewport_renderer or set_viewport_direction. The agent is left to infer from the name alone that this is the display-appearance tool.

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