rhino_named_view_save

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, and the description reinforces this by saying 'save.' It adds some context by specifying that the source is the current camera, but it does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting an existing named view with the same name. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and source without unnecessary detail.

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 adequate for a simple save operation and an output schema exists to describe return values. However, it omits potentially important behavior such as what happens if the named view already exists and does not clarify how doc_id can target a non-active document, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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?

The description does not explicitly mention parameters, but the required 'name' is inferable from 'named view.' The optional doc_id parameter is not addressed, though the schema provides a description for it. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 the specific verb 'Save' with the resource 'current camera as a named view,' clearly stating what the tool does. It is consistent with the tool name and title, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling view-related tools such as rhino_named_views or rhino_view_set.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rhino_named_views, rhino_view_set, or rhino_view_capture_to_file. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context and prerequisites such as having an active viewport.

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