set_camera_transform

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=true), and the description is consistent with them. Beyond that, it adds real value by spelling out the return payload (per-field success flags plus the actual location/rotation applied), which matters because no output schema exists. It still omits units/coordinate-frame caveats, so not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return shape appended. The return-field enumeration is somewhat list-heavy but earns its place since there is no output schema to carry it.

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 annotations covering the mutation safety profile and the schema covering all three parameters in detail, the only real gap was the return contract, which the description supplies. It could still state that at least one of location/rotation is expected and what the coordinate space is, but it is complete enough to call correctly.

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% and the schema is unusually rich – it already documents the optionality of location and rotation, the preservation behavior when omitted, and the preferred object-vs-array rotation form with an explicit warning about the array's index order. The description adds nothing per-parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Update) and resource (location and/or rotation of an existing camera), so the agent knows exactly what is mutated and that the camera must already exist. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like set_actor_transform or get_camera_transform, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 phrase 'existing camera' implies a prerequisite (the camera must exist), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as set_actor_transform or the camera-rig setters in the sibling list. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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