loadViewpoint

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, showing it mutates state but not destructively, plus idempotentHint=true. The description adds the fact that it is 'page-local' and provides a return shape of a success flag and optional fields, exceeding annotation coverage slightly. It does not disclose aspect such as missing viewpoint handling; the return type hints at error reporting but doesn't elaborate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence stating the purpose and return type. It contains zero fluff or repetition, making it highly concise and clear.

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?

Given that it's a simple restore operation with a well-documented schema and annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers the return format and the key action. It doesn't explain what happens if the viewpoint doesn't exist, but the output schema includes 'error' to cover that. Thus it is fairly complete for its scope.

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 schema fully documents all three parameters (name, duration, sessionId). The description adds no extra detail about parameters, so baseline of 3 is appropriate since it neither hurts nor helps beyond 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Restore' and the resource 'previously saved page-local camera state', which precisely indicates the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like saveViewpoint, listViewpoints, and setView by emphasizing 'restore' of a saved state rather than creating, listing, or directly setting a camera.

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?

It implies use when you want to revert to a saved camera state, and the phrase 'previously saved' notes a precondition. While it doesn't compare against alternatives like flyTo or setView, the 'restore' semantic clearly differentiates it from immediate camera manipulation. However, it lacks explicit notes on when not to use it.

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