capture_orbit

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that it takes scripted camera control and 'Releases scripted camera in finally' and that it writes a manifest – side effects the annotations do not spell out. It still does not explain what gets destroyed or the resulting files/format.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, no filler. The trailing 'Caller must identify...' sentence is somewhat dangling but still earns partial place by flagging a decision.

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 7-parameter, 0%-coverage, no-output-schema tool, the description is too thin: it never documents the parameters or the manifest's contents. It gives a decent behavioral sketch (camera release, saving) but leaves an agent unable to call it correctly without guessing parameter meanings.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and mostly does not. 'REGION-coordinate focus' loosely maps to the required 'focus' array, but label, radius, object_id, evidence_kind, height_offset, and views are entirely undocumented.

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 (capture) and resource (orbit views), plus the output artifact (a manifest), around a 'REGION-coordinate focus'. It distinguishes itself from the many nearby camera/preview siblings by naming the orbit-view construct, though it does not explicitly contrast with snapshot or mesh_preview_camera.

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 line 'Caller must identify whether the subject is local preview or a server asset' hints that a precondition matters but never says which parameter or condition selects the branch, nor names an alternative tool. No when-to-use vs snapshot/mesh_preview_camera guidance is given.

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