set_interactive_viewer_exposure

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the valid exposure range and the fact that the operation targets the display of the standalone viewer, but it does not mention side effects, persistence, validation of out-of-range values, or the operation's response.

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 communicates the action, target, and constraint with no filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 two-parameter setter, the description covers the core operation and range, but it lacks details on viewer_id semantics and post-call behavior. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the information is adequate but not fully self-contained.

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%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It explicitly communicates the exposure range, which goes beyond the bare schema, but it does not describe the viewer_id parameter or how to obtain it; viewer_id is only inferable from the tool name.

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 a specific verb ('Set') and a precise resource ('live standalone viewer display exposure') with an explicit range of -20 to 20 stops. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling viewer controls like set_interactive_viewer_denoising or switch_interactive_viewer_aov.

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 phrase 'live standalone viewer' gives some context about the target environment, but the description does not state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. Usage is mostly implied by the tool name and target resource.

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