set_view

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: iso gives perspective projection while other views give parallel projection. It does not clarify that only camera state changes (not model data) or what happens on subsequent calls, so the added context is partial.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded before the projection nuance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 small 3-parameter camera tool with no output schema, the description is nearly adequate, but with 0% schema coverage one parameter is left undefined and the mutation semantics (view-state-only, non-destructive) rest entirely on annotations.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the view enum's projection behavior and names zoom_extents, but the perspective boolean/null parameter is only obliquely implied ('iso defaults to perspective') and never explicitly defined as an override or how null behaves.

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+resource: 'Set a standard view and zoom extents.' An agent immediately knows this manipulates the camera/viewport rather than model geometry. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like screenshot or export_png, but the camera-vs-output distinction is inferable from the wording.

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?

Usage is implied – you call this when you want to orient the view to a standard direction and fit the model. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. a model must be open), and no mention of alternatives, so guidance is only implied.

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