Set 3D view

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive); the description goes well beyond by disclosing that the 3D window opens unless open3D is false, that windowSize persists while capture_view sizing is temporary, and that styleSettings edits the shared 3D style definition affecting every view using it. It also describes the return payload including camera verification and warning fields.

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-loads the easiest use case first and then layers the exact-camera and axonometric variants, so the most likely path is read first. It is dense and telegraphic with fragment-style clauses, which is efficient but slightly tiring; nothing is wasted.

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 19-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the main parameter groups (sun, style, styleSettings, windowSize, stories, elementTypes, cutPlanes) and spelling out the return shape, giving the agent enough to call it correctly without opening every subschema.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by presenting ready-to-use argument combinations (perspective with azimuth/altitude, camera+target+viewCone, axonometric with projection) that show how parameters interact. It does not, however, explain every parameter beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('Sets up the 3D window') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by showing concrete invocation shapes for the three main camera modes. An agent can tell this apart from get_3d_view, show_in_3d, and capture_view without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives explicit usage recipes ('Easiest overview', 'Exact camera', 'Axonometry') and directs the agent to follow up with capture_view to verify. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus show_in_3d or get_3d_view, so it stops 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.