manage_camera

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it excels. It discloses the CaptureService limitation (only one in-flight shot, ~1.5–2 fps caps), the fact that 'suggest' does not move the camera, that 'screenshot' works even when Studio is in the background, and the required security setting. These behavioral traits go well beyond the schema and give the agent critical operational expectations.

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 tightly packed with essential information and is well-structured. It starts with the core purpose, lists actions in a compact syntax-heavy way, then adds necessary caveats and requirements. No verbose or redundant sentences; every clause adds value.

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?

Given the tool's multi-action complexity and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all actions, the CaptureService constraints, the security prerequisite, and the difference between similar actions (focus vs focus_position vs suggest). The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe return values (e.g., what 'get/info' returns), but for a control tool this is less critical.

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 88%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by clarifying action-specific parameter semantics: 'focus_position (look at a world point)' and 'suggest (recommended views for a target or the selection — does not move the camera)'. It also explains the meaning of 'maxDimension' and 'fps' in context of CaptureService limitations, connecting parameters to real-world behavior.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Control the Studio viewport camera.' It then enumerates the full action list (get/info, set, focus, focus_path, focus_position, suggest, zoom_extents, screenshot, record, record_stop), distinguishing each action's role. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like manage_terrain or query_instances, which deal with other subsystems.

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 provides rich usage context: it explains when to use 'suggest' (for recommended views, does not move camera), that 'screenshot' works in background, and that 'record_stop' aborts in-flight recording. It also lists a prerequisite (File → Game Settings → Security → Allow Mesh / Image APIs), which guides the user on setup. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, relying on the tool name and sibling context for distinction.

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