set_camera_framing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation adjusts an existing camera 'without recreating it' and states the effect (re-framing/composition). However, it does not cover side effects such as whether the camera is moved absolutely or relatively, what happens if target_name is empty, or whether existing camera settings are overwritten.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and scope appear in the first sentence, and the Args list is short. The 'Useful for re-framing' sentence adds use context without being bloated. No unnecessary detail or repetition beyond that.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, zero schema description coverage, and five ambiguous optional parameters, this description is under-specified. It does not define units or reference frames, does not explain the role of defaults (all fields optional), and gives no guidance on required preconditions such as an existing camera or non-empty target. An agent could invoke it with plausible but incorrect parameter semantics.

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 Args list must compensate. It adds a little meaning: distance is 'from target' and angle is 'horizontal,' which goes beyond the bare property names. But the explanations remain shallow and ambiguous—'height_offset' and 'angle_offset' do not specify their reference frame or whether they are absolute/delta values—so the description only partially fills the schema gap.

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 ('Adjust'), resource ('camera position'), and relation ('relative to a target'), and adds that it does not recreate the camera, which separates it from create_camera. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other camera-adjustment siblings such as configure_camera or set_camera_to_view, but the framing/target-specific language makes the core purpose clear.

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?

Gives a clear use context: 'Useful for re-framing or adjusting composition.' This tells an agent when to consider the tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., when creating a new camera or setting the viewport camera), so no explicit exclusions are present.

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