saveViewpoint

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds a return structure ({ success, data, message, error }) and clarifies the 'page-local' scope. This is useful beyond annotations and does not contradict any of them.

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, direct sentence followed by the return type. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, the output schema is described indirectly, and the description sheds light on page-local semantics. It is complete enough, though it lacks a mention of overwrite behavior (covered only in schema) and does not explicitly state that repeated saves with the same name are allowed.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (including overwrite behavior for 'name' and multi-browser routing for 'sessionId'). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 'Save the current camera state under a page-local name,' which specifies the verb ('save'), the resource ('current camera state'), and the scoping ('page-local'). It distinguishes from siblings like loadViewpoint and listViewpoints by focusing on writing a named state.

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 usage for saving a viewpoint for later retrieval, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., loadViewpoint) or when not to use this tool. There is no exclusion or preference guidance, so it is only minimally adequate.

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