set_camera_fov

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

Annotations cover safety hints (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds genuinely useful non-schema context: no undo transaction is created and nothing is saved. That is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs. It does not explain why destructiveHint is set or what state changes it causes.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and range, followed by the no-undo/no-save caveat and the read alternative. The inline mention of previous_fov/actual_fov/fov_set is then duplicated in the explicit Returns block, a small redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape and flags the undo/save behavior. It covers everything an agent needs to invoke it, though it could note what happens to invalid FOV values (clamping vs. error), which 'actual_fov' hints at but doesn't explain.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters, including the 0-180 range and name-or-label matching. The description restates these without adding syntax or resolution-order detail, making this a baseline 3.

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 (set) and resource (camera FOV), scopes it to the camera component of ACameraActor/CineCameraActor in the editor world, and explicitly names get_camera_fov as the read counterpart. An agent can distinguish it from set_viewport_fov and the get_* camera tools.

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?

Implies usage context clearly by naming the editor world and pointing to get_camera_fov for reading, and gives the valid FOV range. It never states when NOT to use it (e.g. vs. set_viewport_fov / set_cine_camera_lens), so it falls short of explicit exclusions.

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