set_viewer_context

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: that this call decides whether a scene graph view exists and is a prerequisite for USD-stage preview. It also reveals the return key (is_scene_graph_view). It stops short of permission requirements or failure modes, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered: distinction from the sibling, prerequisite ordering, and the return value, followed by a clean Args block. Every sentence adds routing or behavioral value; nothing is filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: purpose, sibling disambiguation, prerequisite sequencing, per-parameter meaning, and the result key. Failure and permission behavior are the only omissions, which is minor for a viewer-context tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: network_path gets a format example ("/stage"), current_node explains its effect ('selects the stage a Solaris viewport shows'), and pane_name is defined, albeit tersely. The weak pane_name definition prevents a 5.

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 and effect ('Point the Scene Viewer at a network, and optionally a node inside it') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling set_current_network ('moves the network EDITOR; this moves the VIEWER'). An agent can distinguish these two tools without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the alternative (set_current_network), states the prerequisite ordering with a concrete call path ('call this with "/stage" before set_viewport_renderer'), and gives the trigger condition (previewing a USD stage, locating a scene graph view). This is exactly when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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