camera_frame

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation within the scene. The description adds that the operation targets 'the current camera', which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about whether it moves the camera transform, whether it persists or is view-only, or what happens if no camera is active.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and the conditional detail about `ref` is folded in without padding. Nothing to cut.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema and safety annotations in place, the description covers the essential behavior. The only meaningful gap is the type ambiguity of `ref` and whether the framing result is transient or persisted.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does explain the key semantic: presence of `ref` frames one object, absence frames the scene. However, it does not clarify the anyOf(integer | string) union — whether an integer is an object ID or index and a string is a name — leaving a real ambiguity the schema cannot resolve.

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 verb ('Frame') and its two targeting modes (one object, or the whole scene), scoped to 'the current camera'. That is enough to separate it from siblings like camera_set, camera_set_active, and camera_get, though the differentiation is implied by the word 'frame' rather than stated outright.

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?

It gives one concrete usage rule — omit `ref` to frame the whole scene instead of a single object — which is genuinely useful routing information. It never says when to prefer this over camera_set or camera_get, and doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing an active camera.

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