set_view_target

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful behavior: the instant-cut vs linear-blend distinction, PIE gating with a clean error path, and the full return shape. It never acknowledges the destructiveHint=true semantics, but nothing here contradicts the annotations.

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 action, then behavior, then gating, then return shape — a logical order with no filler. The parenthetical API name is slightly extraneous, and the Returns block is compact. Dense but every sentence carries information.

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 side-effecting tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what changes, blend semantics, the PIE precondition, and the return shape. The one omission is any acknowledgement of the destructive/idempotent annotations, which is minor given how benign the actual state change is.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining blend_time=0 is an instant cut while >0 blends linearly, which the schema's 'Seconds to blend' wording does not convey. pie_client_index and target_actor_name gain nothing extra, keeping this below 5.

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 ('Point ... camera'), the exact resource ('the active PIE session's PlayerController camera at an actor'), and grounds it in the concrete API (APlayerController::SetViewTargetWithBlend). An agent can distinguish this from ambient camera siblings like set_viewport_camera or set_camera_transform without opening the 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?

Gives clear context for use ('Frames captures without spawning a camera by hand') and an explicit precondition that doubles as a guardrail ('PIE-gated: clean error if no PIE session'). However, it never names an alternative tool or states when-not-to-use it versus other camera/viewport setters, so no exclusions are offered.

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