set_viewport_renderer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, whether the change is persistent or per-session, or what happens on an unsupported renderer. It only enumerates candidate values, which is schema-domain information rather than behavioral disclosure.

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 short fragment with no padding, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool does, only a bare enumeration of values.

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 mutation-style setter with two parameters, no annotations, and an undocumented 'viewer' parameter, the description is incomplete; it neither covers the missing parameter nor explains the effect of the call. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but little else is covered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates renderer values (xpu, cpu, vk, storm) and persp/top view types for the required 'renderer' argument, but the 'viewer' parameter is completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 lists valid renderer values (xpu, cpu, vk, storm) and view types (persp/top) but never states the action, leaving 'set' to be inferred from the name alone. It gives no differentiation from the adjacent siblings set_hydra_renderer, restart_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 statement of when to use this tool versus set_hydra_renderer, list_hydra_renderers, or set_viewport_display. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about which viewport or state it applies to.

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