Save view from Project Map item

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

Annotations declare a safe non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description adds beyond that by specifying the output ({viewId}) and that the copy inherits the current view settings. It does not warn that repeated calls produce duplicate View Map items, which is the one behavioral trait an agent would want given idempotentHint=false.

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 action and the source/destination mapping; the output clause is clearly separated. The parenthetical enumeration of viewpoint types is somewhat long but serves to define the resource, so it earns most of its space.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({viewId}) and the follow-on placement workflow, and the schema covers the params. Only the duplicate-creation behavior on repeat invocation is left unstated, 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% – both 'item' and 'parent' are documented in the schema, including the hint to obtain ids via get_navigator_tree. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., default parent behavior) beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb ('Saves ... as a new view') and both resources involved: the Project Map item source and the View Map destination. The analogy to 'Clone a view' in the Navigator and the enumerated viewpoint types (story, section, elevation, 3D view...) make it unmistakable which sibling operations it is not, e.g. create_view_map_folder or create_layout.

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?

Explains the effect and what can be done afterward ('The new view can then be placed on layouts'), which gives the agent a clear context for choosing this over get_view_settings/set_view_settings. It does not name an explicit alternative or state when NOT to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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