mesh_preview_camera

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

Annotations already declare it is a mutating, destructive, open-world operation, so the description need not restate safety. It adds real behavioral context: fractional bounds (-0.45..0.45), sign semantics for vertical, and the important limitation 'No exact pose readback or restoration', which is consistent with destructiveHint=true.

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?

Five compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before constraints. Every clause carries information, though the clipped telegraphic style ('Capture to verify') is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic.

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 3-param tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, bounds, sign conventions, a mode constraint, and the readback/restoration limitation. The only material gap is that pan and orbit mode behavior is never described.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents vertical ('positive zooms in'), horizontal ('zoom needs horizontal=0'), and the numeric bounds, but leaves the pan and orbit modes of the 'mode' enum unexplained despite the enum existing in the schema.

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 and resource ('Drag the mesh uploader's preview camera') and immediately scopes it against the alternative ('world camera stays unchanged'). An agent can distinguish this from camera_set, camera_release, and capture_orbit without opening any schema.

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?

Offers an implicit workflow cue ('Capture to verify') and a constraint for one mode ('zoom needs horizontal=0'), but never states when to choose this tool over siblings like camera_set or capture_orbit. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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