set_view

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

With no annotations, the description alone discloses key behaviors: freeze strings and semantics, split exclusivity with freeze, coordinate units, zoom limits, selection format, tab color sentinel, persistence of unset params, auto-backup, atomic verified save, and refusal while open in Excel. This goes far beyond the schema.

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 front-loads the core purpose and then packs every remaining statement with operational detail; no filler. It is long only because there are 12 parameters and complex semantics.

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?

Given no annotations and an input schema with bare property names, the description covers the most operationally significant parameters and behaviors, and an output schema exists to cover return values. Small gaps remain for allow_loss and verify_com, and no alternative routing is provided, so it falls just short of fully comprehensive.

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 compensates by explaining freeze special values, split object semantics, zoom range, selection A1 notation, tab color hex/'clear', and backup behavior. Parameters like path, allow_loss, and verify_com are left for inference, so it is not fully complete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Set sheet-view state') and enumerates the exact facets it manages (freeze, split, gridlines, headings, zoom, selection, tab color). This distinguishes it from sibling mutators like format_cells or set_dimensions even without naming alternatives.

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 establishes clear context for what the tool configures and notes defaults (unset parameters keep current values, active sheet). It does not, however, name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so the agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list.

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