set_viewport_display

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about persistence, whether unspecified options are left untouched, permission requirements, or side effects. The parenthetical list of option categories is the only added context beyond the name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical enumeration is an efficient way to scope the tool. It is appropriately sized, though the terse list leaves the reader wanting 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a five-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently with correct values.

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% and the parameters carry only titles, so the description must compensate. It names four of the five options (shading, guides, grid, isolate) but omits 'viewer' entirely and gives no value syntax, accepted strings, or semantics for shading_mode/isolate.

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 specific verb and resource ('Set viewport display options') and enumerates the affected areas (shading, guides, grid, isolate). It is clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like set_viewport_camera, set_viewport_renderer, or set_hydra_display.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other viewport-setting siblings, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., an active viewport or scene). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and parameter list.

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