viewport_set_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses basic parameters but does not explain whether the change affects the 3D viewport or the camera, if the operation is reversible, or if there are any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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?

The description is extremely concise with no extraneous words. The first sentence immediately communicates the purpose, followed by a clear list of arguments. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what each parameter means. However, it could mention that it applies to the 3D viewport (not camera) and what happens if an invalid view is provided. Still, it is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly listing the allowed values for 'view' and clarifying the boolean 'perspective' argument. This adds significant meaning beyond the default titles and values, though it could be more precise about the perspective parameter (e.g., 'True for perspective view, False for orthographic').

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 clearly states the verb 'Set' and resource 'viewport', and specifies the action 'to a standard view angle'. It lists the allowed view values (FRONT, BACK, etc.), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'viewport_focus_object' that focus on an object rather than setting a standard angle.

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 (when a standard view angle is needed), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. For example, it does not mention that other tools like 'set_camera' or manual rotation exist for custom views. The context of siblings is not leveraged to clarify boundaries.

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