fit_camera

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the precondition that the spec must be validated, which is useful, but 'preserving intent' is too ambiguous to convey what behavior actually occurs. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with 11 parameters. The phrase 'preserving intent' adds ambiguity rather than clarity, and the structure does not front-load important usage details. This reads as under-specification, not conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters, a required spec, and an output schema, the description fails to explain what a spec is, how validation relates to this operation, what 'preserving intent' means, or how the other parameters affect the fitting. The output schema may cover return values, but the behavioral and semantic context is far too thin for correct invocation.

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 0% across 11 parameters, yet the description only mentions 'spec_id' (which maps to the 'spec' parameter). It provides no meaning for fov, margin, backend, projection, direction, resolution, or data_bindings, leaving the agent to guess at their roles from names and defaults alone.

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 names a specific action (fit) and resource (scene.camera), and states the input source (a validated spec_id). This differentiates it from siblings like render_spec or observe_spec, though the phrase 'preserving intent' is vague and does not clarify what the tool does beyond fitting a camera.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites beyond 'validated spec_id' (which is not elaborated), and no mention of situations where it should not be used. The description leaves the agent to infer context solely from the name and schema.

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