set_3d_appearance

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

The description adds genuinely useful runtime behaviors beyond the blank annotations: the gamma_correction toggle's exact meaning, the inclusion of enabled grid/legend in agent PNG captures, and the transient axis appearance when persistent axes are off. These are side effects and only explain this behavioral detail, though it would still be better to mention whether the set is reversible or if any combination is forbidden.

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 compact: the first sentence leads with verb+resource and front-loads the main controls; the next two sentences add useful behavioral nuance. There is no fluff, though the dense listing style makes some mappings (exposure stops ↔ brightness) implicit.

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 description is quite complete for a 9-parameter mutable tool with 0% schema: it covers the main fields and adds important capture/visible behavior. Missing pieces include the 'detail' parameter semantics and explicit mapping of 'brightness' to exposure; the presence of an output schema is not judged here as it does not require functionality that describes the 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries most of the semantic burden, which it did: it maps axes/grid/legend/theme to their concepts, defines background as #RRGGBB, and thoroughly explains gamma_correction. However, the 'detail' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description, and 'brightness' is only indirectly hinted at by 'exposure stops' when clear parameter→meaning mapping.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with a concrete resource ('3D appearance') and enumerates the exact aspects it controls: exposure stops, background, pivot axes, grid, legend, and UI theme. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like set_3d_camera or set_3d_object, which target different scene facets.

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 appearance-related adjustments but does not say explicitly when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools to avoid. The listed domains ('exposure stops, background, ... theme') give context, but an agent gets no direct when/when-not guidance.

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