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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'current center' scoping, but does not disclose details such as whether the orbit continues indefinitely, whether an existing orbit is replaced, or that stopOrbit is needed to end it. This is acceptable but not rich behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action with no filler or redundancy. It is optimally concise for a simple start-command.

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 tool with two optional parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the orbit continues until stopped (perhaps referencing stopOrbit), but the sibling naming and idempotent hint make the behavior adequately discoverable.

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?

The input schema covers speed with a description and direction with an enum (clockwise/counterclockwise), so parameters are mostly self-explanatory despite only 50% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema provides enough meaning for an agent to select correct values.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Start camera orbiting around current center' (开始相机环绕当前中心旋转). It identifies the verb (start), the resource (camera), and the scope (around current center), distinguishing it from siblings like stopOrbit and setCameraOptions.

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool or mention alternatives, but the sibling tool name 'stopOrbit' strongly implies that startOrbit is for beginning an orbit and stopOrbit for ending it. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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