create_camera

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which are not contradicted by the description. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond 'create', such as what state changes occur, potential side effects, or whether existing objects are affected.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise effectiveness. It fails to convey necessary information and essentially repeats the tool name in another language, providing minimal value per word.

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 tool with 6 parameters and a mutation/destructive intent, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, required prerequisites, or any operational context, making it nearly useless 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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides zero parameter information. The agent must rely solely on names and defaults, which is insufficient for understanding rotation, lens, clip_start/end, or location semantics.

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 'Buat kamera' literally translates to 'Create camera', which is a direct restatement of the tool name. It provides a clear verb and resource but adds no distinguishing information beyond the name, and does not differentiate from sibling creation tools like create_object or create_light.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without additional decision-making information.

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