align_viewports_across_sheets

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates content. The description adds only that annotation extents are ignored, but does not disclose what gets repositioned, whether the operation is reversible, or what document state is required. For a destructive mutation, that is a significant behavioral gap.

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 wasted wording. It is concise, but arguably too terse for a five-parameter destructive tool, leaving key details unstated.

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?

An output schema and annotations exist, so the description need not cover return values or basic safety hints. However, given five parameters with zero schema descriptions and a destructive mutation, the description is not complete enough to help an agent invoke the tool 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%, and the description only vaguely maps target sheets and a reference sheet to the parameters. It does not explain main_sheet_number, target_sheet_numbers defaults, or the three boolean parameters align_legend, align_titleblock, and apply_crop_scope_box, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: aligns viewports on target sheets to a reference sheet. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling read/list/view tools. It is slightly ambiguous about whether main_sheet_number is the reference sheet, but the core purpose is clear.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or what prerequisites are required. There are no sibling alternatives named, though no direct sibling for viewport alignment is present.

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