set_view_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a mutating operation ('Set') on view properties, but does not disclose whether changes persist, whether the document is affected, what happens with invalid action_params, or any side effects. The 'view properties' phrasing hints at non-destructive behavior but does not confirm it.

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 concise: one purpose sentence and two arg bullets. Every word adds value, and it avoids restating the JSON schema types. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the main action_params contract is underspecified: since action_params is a free-form object with additionalProperties, an agent needs at least example keys or a reference to the HViewProperties definition to call this tool correctly. The prerequisite of an open document is only implicit via doc_id, not explicit.

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. It does add meaning by labeling doc_id as 'Document ID from open_document' and action_params as 'HViewProperties fields to set', but it does not enumerate valid HViewProperties keys, their types, or how additionalProperties should be structured. The compensation is partial at best.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Set HWP view properties (zoom, view mode, etc.)'. This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinct from content-editing tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar siblings like set_hwp_property or set_engine_properties.

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 only usage context is that doc_id is 'Document ID from open_document', which implies the document must already be open. There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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