rhino_view_set

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

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, and the description says 'activate,' implying a state change. But the description adds no further behavioral context beyond that: it does not say whether the document is modified, whether a missing named view causes an error, or what side effects occur. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 filler. It communicates the core action immediately and uses only six words, so every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. Still, it lacks usage routing and behavioral side-effect disclosure, so an agent might invoke a sibling tool or be surprised by the lack of feedback if the named view does not exist.

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 adds only the general notion of a 'named view,' which partially maps to the name parameter. The nested schema does document name and doc_id, but the stated schema description coverage is 0%, and the description itself does not mention doc_id or the args wrapper. It therefore does not sufficiently compensate for the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the action: 'Activate a saved named view.' It names the resource (a saved named view) and the verb (activate), and the word 'saved' helps distinguish it from view-creation or view-listing tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from nearby siblings like rhino_set_view or rhino_named_views.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_named_view_save, rhino_named_views, or rhino_set_view. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose among view-related tools.

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