view_settings

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

Annotations only declare that this is a non-destructive, non-read-only tool. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations lack: which options are live-mode only (zoom, scroll, playback, timeline, preview), that batch mode requires a file path for `sprite`, and that backend defaults to live if connected. It does not describe what a read call returns, but it goes well beyond 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?

One long sentence, but it is front-loaded with the core verb/resource before the parenthetical enumeration, and the read-usage sentence is placed last where it reads naturally. Dense but nearly all of it earns its place given 15 parameters.

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 no-required-param, nested, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the setting surface well and explains the live/batch distinction. Remaining gaps (return shape on read, individual nested field meaning) are modest given the schema carries those definitions.

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?

With 15 params and only 60% schema description coverage, the description does meaningful work: it groups the nested objects (grid, pixel grid, symmetry, tiled mode, onion skin, overlays, checkerboard) and flags which parameters apply only in live mode. It stops short of explaining individual nested toggles like `grid.snap` or `background.size`, which the schema also leaves undescribed.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource ('Reads or changes per-sprite view settings') and then enumerates the exact setting groups covered. 'Per-sprite' implicitly separates it from the global `preferences` sibling, though no sibling is named outright.

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 line 'Call with no options to read them' clearly distinguishes the read path from the write path, which is genuinely useful. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus `preferences` (global settings) or other view-affecting tools, so usage is only partially implied.

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