Set view settings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it explains that saved-view changes are persisted ('the view then stores these settings') and clarifies which parameters apply to which mode, plus the return shape {changed, settings}.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and scope, then the parameter grouping and the localization caveat. The parenthetical parameter lists are long but each item earns its place; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 13-parameter, nested-schema mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers mode selection, parameter applicability, the localization prerequisite, related lookup tools, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by grouping parameters by mode (core settings for the active window; penSet, dimensionStyle, graphicOverrides, zoom, ignoreSavedZoom, renderingScene for saved views) and noting that attribute names are localized and retrievable via get_attributes.

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 (Changes) and resource (view settings) and scopes it precisely: ACTIVE window by default, or a saved View Map view when 'view' is passed. It also enumerates the settings it can affect, so an agent knows exactly what the tool touches without opening the schema.

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?

Clearly states the selection condition: omit 'view' to target the current window, pass 'view' to target a saved view. It also routes the agent to get_attributes for localized attribute names and to get_view_settings for availableRenovationFilters. It does not, however, contrast with sibling tools like set_3d_view or get_view_settings.

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