perspective_page_config_set

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states it's mutating and uses read-modify-write to avoid clobbering, which is helpful. However, it omits required permissions, side effects, or rate limits.

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 very short (two sentences), which is efficient but sacrifices clarity. Jargon and missing parameter context reduce its effectiveness.

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 5 parameters (3 required), no schema descriptions, and no explanation of the tool's output (though an output schema exists), the description is severely incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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% for all 5 parameters, and the description provides no explanation of what parameters like 'project', 'page_url', 'view_path', 'title', or 'confirm' mean or how they relate to the tool's function.

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 indicates it's a mutation tool for page config using a read-modify-write pattern, which distinguishes it from the sibling get tool. However, the phrasing 'bridge plane + scan' is jargon that may not be universally understood.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like perspective_page_config_get or perspective_upsert_view. The note about not clobbering pages implies a safe usage pattern but lacks context for decision-making.

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