cascadeur_set_view_mode

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this tool can alter state. The description adds contextual value by scoping the effect to the active viewport and framing the change as a display mode. However, it does not disclose what exactly gets changed or whether existing viewport settings are reset, leaving the destructive implications partly unexplained.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes meaning by naming the two display categories and the scope (active viewport). It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description gives the core action and target but is incomplete on the meaning of the modes. Since destructiveHint is set, the agent would benefit from at least a note on side effects. The description is workable for a domain-expert agent but leaves ambiguity that the schema cannot resolve.

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 schema has one parameter with a 6-value enum and 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the semantics. It vaguely groups the modes into 'clean mesh review' and 'rig controller display mode', but it does not map the enum values (View, AutoPosing, PointController, Controller, Joint, Mesh) to those categories. This leaves several ambiguous modes, like PointController vs Controller, unexplained.

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 a specific action: choosing a mesh review or rig controller display mode for the active viewport. It identifies the resource (viewport) and the verb (choose/set). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cascadeur_set_camera or cascadeur_set_properties, which could also affect viewport display.

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 only says the tool targets the active viewport, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. For example, it does not mention that setting a view mode affects only the active viewport and not the scene state, or when a different tool like set_camera would be more appropriate.

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