set_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Drive the live canvas' but never discloses whether changes are persistent, whether they affect other collaborators, whether auth/project scoping applies, or whether any node state is destroyed (collapse/expand could hide content). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real 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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded before the command enumeration. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is dense shorthand ('...') rather than cleanly structured.

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?

For a tool with a nested free-form command object, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It gives the command-type list but nothing about per-command parameters, projectId semantics, or effects, which an agent needs to invoke six distinct operations 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%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it spells out the discriminator values for the nested 'command' object (setViewMode|selectIteration|zoomToNode|expandNode|collapseNode|focusGoals) plus an ellipsis hinting at per-command fields. However it does not explain what each command type does or what projectId selects, leaving the per-command arguments undocumented.

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 concrete action ('Drive the live canvas') and enumerates the actual command types (setViewMode, selectIteration, zoomToNode, expandNode, collapseNode, focusGoals), so the agent knows this manipulates live view state rather than reading it. It stops short of naming read_view or another sibling to sharpen the boundary, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the obvious alternative read_view (which presumably reads what this tool mutates). The command list implies usage but the agent must infer everything about context and prerequisites.

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