switch_interactive_viewer_aov

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool switches AOVs, but does not mention prerequisites like whether the viewer must be running, side effects on the existing render state, or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for an action that mutates viewer state.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. The action, target, and accepted values are all front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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 two-parameter switching tool, the description covers the core purpose and value domain. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves the agent to infer prerequisites and behavioral effects, such as whether the viewer must already be launched and what happens if it is not live.

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%, but the description compensates for the aov parameter by listing all meaningful values (beauty, albedo, normal, depth, wireframe). The viewer_id parameter is not explicitly explained, but it is reasonably clear from the term 'viewer' and 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 ('Switch') and resource ('live standalone viewer') and enumerates the exact target values: beauty, albedo, normal, depth, or wireframe. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_interactive_viewer_exposure or capture_interactive_viewer_snapshot.

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' provides clear context for when this tool applies, and differentiates it from render-pipeline and snapshot/capture tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended usage is readily inferred.

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