set_viewport_camera

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

Since annotations are absent, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is a 'UI/view write' that does NOT enter the undo group, and it reveals error behavior (camera_not_found for invalid paths). It also mentions the response passes through server-side apply_response_cap. These details go beyond typical expectations and give the agent a clear picture of side effects.

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?

The description is concise, with three short sentences that convey purpose, constraints, and behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses formatting (code spans, bold) to highlight key terms. Every sentence adds value, making it compact and efficient.

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 simple setter tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does, error handling, undo behavior, and a note on response processing. The main omission is the return value, but since no output schema exists, a brief mention would have helped. Overall, it's fairly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters (ctx, camera_path). The description adds meaning for camera_path by specifying it must refer to an existing node, but ctx remains unexplained. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but does not fully clarify both parameters, leaving a noticeable gap.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as '设置 SceneViewer viewport camera' (set SceneViewer viewport camera), with a specific verb and resource. It also includes 'NO_UNDO' which distinguishes this as a viewport-control operation separate from other setter tools like set_viewport_display or set_viewport_renderer. The purposes is unambiguous.

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 description provides usage constraints: camera_path must be an existing node, and invalid paths return camera_not_found. It also clarifies this is a UI/view write that does not enter the undo group. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_viewport_direction or frame_selection. The usage context is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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